Wow look at this, a channel for debating

Lies

Also slowmode bot.

Standardized tests make sense when they are conceived in the correct manner.

Tests that test specific knowledge, for example what you learned from a particular book or in a single class, are just a test of what you can remember.

But tests designed around entire bodies of knowledge, for example medical exams, are quite effective. They don't test what you remember but rather what you know.

There is a big difference

Agreed. My gripes with not only standardized testing but testing in general is that they are done in a way that doesn't encourage the students to learn what is being taught, and instead to memorize the information temporarily.

My psychiatric boards didn't ask me questions with four right answers and one right answer, they asked me questions with five right answers and asked what was the "best" answer among them. It required me to have real experience from my residency treating real patients and also to be very familiar with the literature so I can recognise what the current body of knowledge is as opposed to "traditional knowledge" which may have been superseded by new information.

Passing scores for "real" standardized tests are often in the high 60's or low 70's % specifically because it's hard to answer questions that have no single right answer. The point of the test is to prove that you are broadly familiar with the body of knowledge. Test questions can literally come from anywhere as long as you can cite them in the primary literature or accepted standards of practice.

👌

I thought that kind of thing was a common thing in universities? Give the students literature to read, hold the lecture and then hold a test with a passing grade of like 50%?

@DrYuriMom since you have experience with grand jury duty. I hope you can explain it to me, since I am a filthy foreigner from a place without juries.
I tried reading the wiki article, but did not get much meaning from it.
1. Is the purpose of the grand jury to discover if there are any merit to an accusation?
2. Are you allowed to bring a lawyer when appearing in front if a grand jury?
3. You know the history of the concept of thegrand jury?
4. A (normal) jury is part of trial where guilt and punishment are metered out?
5. What is the definition of a; reasonable doubt. b; beyond reasonable doubt. c; beyond any doubt.
6. Is there any difference between a grand jury on state level and federal level?
7. Do you have an opinion on the Mueller Grand jury?

I can atleast answer number 5

Go for it

A) is basically is there enough evidence for a group of peers to believe you committed a crime, B) There must be more than before, C) And finally, The evidence in facts proves they committed it

I'm pretty sure that's not what reasonable doubt is.

I;ll come back to this in a bit. Too busy in general ^^;

Let's move over here, I think it's fair to say this is becoming a debate.

No one is taking life away except the individual taking their own life

Which is itself an abridgement of the citizen's privileges.

Thus, enforcing a law which allows it is a breach of the amendment.

The citizen has no right to determine their own actions upon oneself? That doesn't strike me as liberty.

There can be no laws which allow for the abridgement of citizen privileges. There is no caveat that the citizen is exempt from abridging their own privileges.

Thus, a citizen is not allowed to abridge their own privilege to life.

"You're not allowed to die. You must express yourself"

So, on the topic of grand jury.
1-correct
2-no. The defense has absolutely no role in a grand jury and the accused may not even know that charges are pending.
3- Grand jury is to prevent the tyranny of a district attorney. Any felony accusation must be deemed credible by a jury before prosecution can occur.
4- yes
5- Grand juries have a rather low bar. All we assess is whether if, assuming all the testimony and evidence is true, there is a credible case that could result in a guilty verdict.
6-Yes, the threshold is different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
7- All I know is that they are citizens doing the best the can to perform their civic duty.

Does a grand jury convict?

Never

They simply act as gatekeepers to prosecution

Where is it written in the Constitution that we have a "privilege to life"?

Thank you for your answers

Ah. Well, if we do not, that simplifies things greatly.

So, a law that allows for the killing of individuals on the spot would then be a legitimate right of a state?

Due process

And would not be in conflict with the 14th amendment.

So, an individual kills himself, there is no problem with due process.

An individual kills another, and suddenly there is a problem with due process?

Why is that?

Because you can't prosecute a dead person.

Ah, so you admit they are breaking the law. It is simply impossible to punish them for it.

Sure.

So, allowing for assisted suicide *is* a breach of the 14th amendment.

I'll see where this leads

_Where is it written in the Constitution that we have a "privilege to life"?_
As far as I know it is not written in the constitution, but the Declaration of Independence.
_life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...._

If there is no law against suicide, I'm still not sure how we can say due process was violated

Murder being the unlawful killing of a human being with intent beforehand.

Thus, there is no legal divide between suicide and murder.

That is determioned by the wording of the statute

Wait, so an attempted suicide is attempted murder?

So, if suicide is legal, then a man may kill himself without concern for due process?

I would say yes.

Then, if murder is legal, a man may kill another man without concern for due process.

I'm curious to see where you take this next. I won't bite but for sake of argument let's just suppose I did for entertainment value.

Laws must be applied equally and with logical consistency. Anything less is corruption and a breakdown of governance.

I'll agree to that

*looks around waiting for the trap to go off*

There is no trap, Cat. All I'm trying to do is to understand to the best of my ability and try to help others do the same.

Oh, cool. I like those debates. 😃

Debate discord
https://discord.gg/83jUmx

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/civil-forfeiture-makes-law-enforcement-lawless-the-supreme-court-could-change-that/2018/11/23/1ca778a2-ef51-11e8-96d4-0d23f2aaad09_story.html?utm_term=.3245cf0bac3e

I personally detest civil forfeiture. It's a conflict of interest. If you must do it, the money should go to state coffers and totally bypass local government. Is there actually any debate here on this topic? I'm just curious.

Seems like a topic where right and left may actually agree.

Tbh I think that if your selling drugs out of your car, your license should be permanently revoked

Beyond what jail time you get

License, yeah. But your property? These laws have been used to take the houses of parents whose kids were selling drugs against their will or without their knowledge.

Your clearly a danger to others cause they could drive high

People drive without licenses all the time

https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/index.html

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/son-is-busted-for-drugs-but-its-mom-and-dad-who-lose-the-cars/

Well, there are situations like that, but a home is different from a car

The question before the court will be if such automatic seizures that then directly benefit local government should be protected from the Constitutional prohibition against disproportionate fines

Or whether this practice is unconstitutional based on the 8th

Well its definitely unconstitutional

Thst much I agree on

This topic is fascinating to me. What good would taking someone's property be if the person is already going to jail?

I don't understand the question.

There is no gain from taking the car away from someone who wasn't doing the crime aswell. Like the story of the parent care being taken awa

By taking their property, you have their assets and can use them for yourself.

But that doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you'll help. I don't see why the government should be allowed to take ones car away if the car won't even be used by the dealer once in jail anyway

It sorta makes the situation worse for the people around the crime

Like the parents

I suppose the argument would be "this person has gained these assets through criminal activity, and thus has no legitimate claim to them."

"They will instead be taken by the state and used for government assets."

Like, I don't think the government is allowed to take your car if you get arrested for assault.

That is the basic argument. The issue is the property may not even be owned by the guilty person and it creates a perverse incentive for local police departments to take property that they immediately benefit directly from.

That's the problem but what I want to know is what the logic behind taking ones property away from a criminal

The same issue arises with those civil forfeiture cases that we talked about earlier.

Right, I just explained it.

But what about the case of the car belonging to the parenta

That's Spanish for parents

It kinda means that any asset used for crime can be taken away, to who the asset actually belongs to be damn

Yes, civil asset forfeiture cases.

So not only could my car be taken away from the criminal it will be taken by the cops

To some extent, I can see the purpose of such activity. Regardless of your complicity with the crime, the property was involved, and is thus evidence in a criminal case.

However, yes, it should eventually be returned to the proper owner.

Is that reality though. Will certain property be returned?

I can see why a house will be given back but a car?

With civil forfeiture laws the property is never returned.

It's sold and the money goes into the local jurisdiction's coffers

where it gets handed out to the cops.

Well that fucking sucks. Kinda ruined my day

We will see what the Supremes have to say about it

@Bookworm in the case of attempted suicide, couldn't you strictly claim self defense, because the person you tried to kill was pointing a gun at you, for instance?

@DrYuriMom civil forfeiture laws are often used by corrupt cops to take property from things such as traffic stops. They will claim "this looks like drugs", take money and the like, then go "oh, our mistake" and never give back the money.

personally, those laws are BS and to an extent just contribute to recidivism rate.

The supremes? Aren't they backup singers?

I call SCOTUS "The Supremes" It's just a Cat-ism

@Timcast please don’t have Sargon on again he has falsely accused people of being pedophiles after the person made fun of sargon

@DrYuriMom i approve this catism

>bringing Jimtism back into the mix
Can this shit just die please?

Jimtism???

Sargon (Carl Benjamin) sphere has been in conflict with Metokur's (Jim) sphere. Sargon also hasn't accused Jim of pedophilia, he has accused him of grooming his audience to be especially malicious to his foes and amorous towards him, which he has.

Jimtism is a derivative of Autism, and in my opinion it is an apt characterization of his audience. When they feel the need to constantly tease Carl over his stillborn child you begin to realize the caliber of the people you are dealing with.

It's true. Jim is one of the last public figures of the old guard of the internet.

The people that reveled in the anonymity and used it to just...be the worst possible people. Because they can, and they find it amusing.

Who is Jim

Metokur?

I'm not familiar with that feud at all

Or the people besides Sargon

Yeah Jim is just some deeply closeted gay man

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3609949/amp/Matildas-lose-7-0-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html

Thats not what sargon said @Dvir

And @Bookworm you sound like you have no balls

@DrWittMDPhD he finger banged his little asian on livestream

Jim is a good by who don’t do nuttin wrong

It is what Sargon said. Stop being a drama whore m8

No Sargon was implying it was sexual

Because we are the little sweetie squad

>getting butthurt and overly sensitive because you're an admitted dickrider
Nice one

A quote from the thinkery “Jim is about 31 interrogating a 17 year old about his 14 year old boyfriend”

The 17 year old was a 19 year old jim was pedo busting as per usual

Soygon is worthless garbage

And id never ride jimbos dick we are faggots

So is it the physical age that counts solely? Or are we going to see JF exposed soon?
Cuz it's about consistency right? And not just being a patreon cockgobbler after saying you wouldnt stoop to that

If evidence comes out against one of the most prolific internet detectives ill pick up a pitchfork too

thats not what I asked

Given that Jim is big on guilt by association, why does he not absolutely destroy JF and Ralph, given that both are guilty of the shit he claims to hate? Why does he choose to associate with them?

He is in no way a fan of guilt by association

He is a fan of guilt by being guilty

Like sargon being in krauts discord

And having knowledge of the gay doxing server

he was blaming Vee for shit "his buddies" were doing. In his little fit on Vee's stream he absolutely did fall back on guilt by association, and when it was pointed out that this didnt work given his friends, he made that comment on rolling in the shit to take other people down

Source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xIfbyhSx3 somewhere in this fucking stream

https://youtu.be/ZpUzliLpJkE

4 minutes into this one is where soygon implies jim is a pedo for pedo hunting

Im not watching a whole stream

I got the timestamp you do the same

Jim's on that stream for like 10 minutes and I've got other shit to do anyway

You sleepy sargon?

>everyone who disagrees with me is Sargon
What are you, a twitter thot?

No its called funny

Also as far as I'm aware the argument was not that Jim only had young viewers, just that he had goaded his young viewers into doing his dirty work. I don't really care either way, because Sargon is full of shit a good chunk of the time anyway, but going for analytics to disprove that is some potato shit

Cuz sargon always gets sleepy when he is losing and now someone defending him also cant be bothered to make a cohesive argument

It's 10 minutes of a stream m8

Yeah facts are some potato shit

It's almost all Jim talking. As one of his groomed children you should love that :^)

I wish to speak with the voice that makes 1000 pedophiles run in fear

And makes all the skeptics beg for mercy

From what I'm seeing, they've provided a citation for their argument, while you've basically told them to look for your evidence for you.

This is some cringy shit. Maybe Jim really *does* have a potato squad :^)

Btw your link isnt working @Beemann

@Bookworm he has yet to give me a link that works

https://youtu.be/4xIfbyhSx3s

Ah there we go, an s got clipped out during copy/paste

ok so jim told vee he was a hypocrite and your issue was?

As jim said “this is why I’m better than you if i have to be in the sewers to drag you in with me i don’t care”

Sorry jim isn’t some big brained liberalist he just wants to fuck the skeptics cuz of their incest bs

Vees issue was saying he has no knowledge of krauts doxing server and then later admitting full knowledge of it and being in the doxing server

Lol no, Jim implied Vee was responsible because his friends were in the discord (where, from what I've been hearing, the doxxing didn't actually take place) and as such Vee must have known more than he claims. Meanwhile Jim hangs out with people who assault police and sexually harass wahmen

Vee was saying, and I would agree, that Jim shouldn't be held responsible for people like JF and Ralph

And Jim made that retarded ass comment about how if money is being made you're affiliated
While Jim had been involved in IBS streams for ages
Not a good stance to take

@Timcast Your comment about "unfettered capitalism" and pollution is misinformed. It was government, not the market, which enabled pollution at scale into commons. Disregarding their role as arbiter of private property disputes. When people brought businesses to court over air and water pollution early in the industrial revolution it was government which said that it was OK because it was for the benefit of all.

It's fine if you think it'd happen even if there was free market courts but history shows that businesses got away with polluting because governments allowed it.

There is also the whole "pollution is stinky and people prefer their planet to not be stinky" that capitalism would eventually take care of.

pollution got out of hand during the industrial revolution to the early 50s partly because until then we were basically..more worried about actually eating and not dying than we were about the long term effects of industry..cause people weren't really living long enough to care.

Certainly that was part of it too.

Given pollution is subjective it was reasonable that courts ruled that say... burning wood for heat was not pollution because everyone did it and pretty much everyone accepted that as the cost of surviving.

Well yes, when the choice is "Die, or pollute" the second choice will always be taken

that is why China is currently one of the largest sources of pollution..people are choosing "Not fucking die"

Well, death in this case being a national kind of death, where their relevancy is destroyed and they become economically colonized by stronger powers.

Well no

I meant the low class farmers who worry about things like starving, and who want to move into the growing Chinese middle class.

@Beemann dont forget vee is into ageplay

and a bunch of other degenerate shit

Everyone knows Vee is a degenerate. Who gives a fuck? JF fucked a potato and Ralph assaulted an officer. Clearly Jim doesnt care about what the people he's associated with do in their spare time, he just wants Vee to hold himself to that standard

degenerate or deviant?
One is a moral judgement, the other is simply something outside the norm.

Fucking degenerate

Ralph was drunk and continually says he fucked up

Vee continually jerks it to little kids

@Beemann and no jim just doesn’t want people to be fucking degenerates

And dox people

And claim to have such deep and powerful principles while doing skeevy shit in the back room

you'd have to define "little kids"

some people call 16 yo's "little kids" because the legal age is 18 in their place of residence, while its perfectly legal elsewhere

Ralph has been a continual disappointment, including trying to get people doxxed. Who has Vee doxxed? Is there proof that Vee has a secret CP stash? Or is this more "coincidence" shit?

His account on some weird forum

so no definition to "little kids".
I'm going to assume its hyperbole and dismiss the accusations

It depends on the kid

?

oh you dont know that one? sargon's made fun of for it all the time

Sargon says “it depends on the child”

context being that ethnically and lawfully each state has its own cultural and legislative behaviors that set age restrictions for things.. especially sexual things, but that some youth are less developed/mature than others. hence it depends on the child.

It's obvious he's not advocating for sex with youths, but thats the joke people play on.

I see. I mean, technically, i can't disagree.
But we don't live in a society that deals with people on an individual basis. (usually)

It would be scary if we did

There are cases for it in the US.. each state has their own age limits, but then also consent from the youth and/or their parent.

15 is the youngest I think?

us law is pretty retarded.
Its best just to assume legal age in the US is 18

But yeah I've seen some smart, well-oriented 15 year olds that just don't know everything yet, but i've also seen some idiotic 29 year olds I wouldn't trust with a goldfish let alone a date.

iirc federal age is 13 but the states are all higher

putting us in the exact same situation that prompts the >japan AoC is 13 meme

Their culture is way more homogenous and universally understood than ours is, so I can understand that. There is probably MUCH less variation between attitudes and behaviors of 13 year old girls in Japan than in the US.

Not saying I find 13 acceptable, but thats just for older people to be with the younger ones. Kids'll be kids and fuck themselves into unwanted pregnancies and plan Bs as they do. Tale as old as time.

i know.....its so romantic. ❤ ❤

no like, it's technically 13

but every province in japan sets it higher

so you can't actually bone 13 year olds anywhere lmao

Not even on those northern islands no one knows?

https://giphy.com/gifs/exercise-bring-it-on-1zTqgW6bS2jWU

it's actually further removed from that @zero_consequences , he was talking to Justicar about the aftereffects of him being kiddie fiddled

to which Justicar said that it was fine for him

hokkaido?

iirc everything north of hokkaido is russian 🤔

so rather than argue with someone who had been statutorily raped, Sargon said "well I guess it depends on the child" basically

Similar to the Milo thing I bet. He's fine with it.

i'd say it makes sense because people reach maturity at different ages, but since such logic could easily be abused if applied as law, the best thing we can do is decide on an acceptable age limit

Yeah, before you know it you have guys tripping over coffee tables and accidentally inserting their penises into girls during the fall.

Its a 1 in a billion shot. When it happens, trust me, no one believes you.

Hmm. Fight!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/31/number-one-in-poverty-california-isnt-our-most-progressive-state-its-our-most-racist-one/#32cb93215cd9

The author is very much on the left and calls out how many of the progressive policies have resulted in greater inequality and helped create a 2 tier society in California. He doesn't give solutions, but it would presumably come from the left in his case. Still, something like this would be fuel for the right.

The soultion is to disown CA

He doesn't give solutions because they would all involve deregulation.

It's virtually impossible to make a case for it these days.

Even when I try here, I have a torrent of opposition usually.

People proclaim libertarian values and principles, but when you hold their feet to the fire, they usually make up an excuse and regurgitate the precise arguments that got us into this mess.

I keep bringing up such examples as minimum wage, rent control, market deregulation, and so forth. All I hear is how this would spell the end of the world.

We are not able to deregulated. Whenever another country or market is ruined by the sheer amount of state intervention, people's solution is always to add yet another regulation to undo the harm done by a prior regulation.

"You can't take away that regulation, because, by now, we have this other regulation in place. So, the solution is to add a regulation to undo the effects of the second regulation."

I might have grokked the essence of the Austrian and Chicago schools of thought, but it will be a long time until I have the angelic patience of people such as Friedman and Sowell.

Every time I have a conversation about economics, I want to hit my head on the nearest wall. It's fine, though. A fool and his money are soon parted.

But in order to keep people from starving or dying on the streets a la the time before all these controls we'd need more government "welfare". If we let the market handle it, are we prepared to provide more food stamps, Medicaid, etc. to those who have to work for less than it costs to live?

I'm open to removing all the market controls you mention as long as we have an effective safety net to ensure we don't let our own people (citizens and legal residents) to die because the market won't either give them the ability to support themselves (able bodied) or they can't support themselves within it (disabled).

I was reading “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” The cat just died and it makes me feel so sad I knew it was real the poor thing

And i know the owner will know its fake

I need to read more PKD

@Undead Mockingbird#8608 I hear you, m8.

Oh, wow, where'd he go?

Did he get yeeted?