And that some makes it excusable to be part of a sexist, patriarchal culture?
Rather, the "intelligent" and well-educated male contingent should be taking steps that the "rest" of male culture does not; lead by example... don't follow whenever you feel the tide shifting.
Actually, the holding of Falwell was that for a public figure to recover for IIED without showing that (1) the statements were false and (2) made with knowledge of that falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.
No, I'm well aware that India has a long tradition of research into medicine. So do most ancient cultures. I'm telling you that the "Ayurvedic" medicine that you see peddled by the likes of Chopra is 100% bullshit guaranteed to fleece gullible people out of their money by tacking on an appropriately mysterious and ancient name to snake oil.
The UCC applies to all contracts for the sale of goods. A sale is a transfer of title for a price. A good is something movable at the time of sale.
A domain name/data is not a good for purposes of the UCC. Therefore, the state of relevant jurisdiction's common-law contracts doctrines will apply. If the seller makes a material misrepresentation upon which the buyer was justified in relying, then the buyer is not bound by the terms of the contract related to the material misrepresentation. You are wrong about contract law. Such "buyer beware" or "caveat emptor" doctrines are not part of modern contract law. You may be able to disclaim warranties of fitness for a particular purpose (provided the disclaimer was done properly, usually in writing and conspicuously), but in this case the buyer may not necessarily be charged with knowledge of the license agreement that the data was developed under. I'd need to spend a good few hours with the cases from the relevant jurisdiction to tell you, but you are wrong when you espouse such a caveat emptor idea about contract law.
If you're curious, I will go grab my Restatement (Second) of Contracts and point you to the relevant sections. In fact, I think I can look them up on Westlaw right now. Would you like me to do so?
Re:%75 as effective as a prescription 3% the price
on
Science vs. Homeopathy
·
· Score: 1
So you are suggesting that after 30 years of medical attention, when my friend decided to seek out alternatives (and stopped taking all of his prescribed drugs) and came across his "witch doctor" it just happened to coincide with the longest,best and steadiest "up swing" in his ailment?
Yes.
To offer some cocky bullshit like "can only offer him a cosmic sense of wholeness" and proceeded to ignore the reality of his vastly improved condition isn't scientific, it's denial.
To assume a causal connection based on correlation is logically invalid. To offer up the "cocky bullshit" explanation is proper scientific procedure, based on identifiable variables that were isolated and taken into account for when the hypothesis was formulated.
No, these things don't fit nicely into our current scientific understanding of the world, but that means we need to expand our scientific understanding, not deny the anomalies.
No, it means we must consider whether these are true "anomalies" or whether we can explain them in terms of the current theory. The reason that acupuncture cannot possibly work as claimed is that it posits a vitalistic force that is not one of the four natural forces that occur in the world. Hence, any theory that invokes such a force necessarily multiplies the types of entities we must cognize in order to save an appearance, a purported anomaly. But in this case, we can explain the "anomaly" in terms of the four existing forces -- the change in your friend's condition was due to some natural cause, such as the natural progression of the disease, a change in environment, reduced stress... hell, it could be almost anything. Blithely assuming it was the acupuncture is an example of post-hoc reasoning. Don't engage in that.
This isn't a contract for the sale of goods, so it's not a UCC contract. Common law applies. Fraud and material misrepresentation are defenses to having to live by the terms of a contract.
Re:%75 as effective as a prescription 3% the price
on
Science vs. Homeopathy
·
· Score: 1
I'll take this as proof that the money spent on my education by my home state was a wise investment. Literacy is cool! (Or should I abbreviate this into Internet-acronym form? Is my tone too elitist? Shall I flagellate myself for being bourgeois and not adopting an appropriately proletarian stance toward intellectual matters like science? Tell me how to live, Cart!)
Re:%75 as effective as a prescription 3% the price
on
Science vs. Homeopathy
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the method is not reproducible in a laboratory because the Chinese "doctor" is not isolating variables. He merely administers a treatment, and if the patient's condition improves, everyone assumes a causal relation between the treatment and the result. HOWEVER -- this is not the same as a medical study done on a drug (where there is a control group) that isolates variables until we can be sure that it is the treatment (and not some other cause) that leads to a change.
You also display an ignorance about "Western" medicine (I use scare quotes because doctors and scientists in the East use the same methods as Western doctors do) and the methodology by which it investigates psychology, psychosomatism and other "mind-body" connections. What you're talking about is the quasi-spiritual crap that is used to explain techniques like homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki, and whatever. That's not scientific. Science cannot comment on its correctness. But by the same token, it doesn't come with the pedigree of science -- it's pseudoscience.
So when you ask me what I will trust my health to -- actual science or pseudoscience -- don't be at all surprised when I chose the verifiable, demonstrable method.
Antibiotics, which comprise only a small amount of modern medical treatment, are drugs which are deadly to bacteria and other pathogens. They are, in essence, poison for what ails you. Many of these compounds are found in some form in nature (hence, why "herbs" and things like that have some beneficial value), BUT modern science often isolates and synthesizes these compounds to be more effective, with less damaging side-effects from other incidental compounds found in the natural state.
This of course doesn't cover inoculations, sterilization, diagnostic medicine, physical therapy, or any of the other number of modern, scientific advances in the field of medicine unknown to our primitive ancestors.
And ayurvedic medicine is a term coined by con-men to fleece you out of your money.
Re:%75 as effective as a prescription 3% the price
on
Science vs. Homeopathy
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Acupuncture is stress-relieving because it stimulates the release of endorphins, which is a quaint way of saying it gets you high.
Less stress is, incidentally, better for your health. But it's nothing special about acupuncture. It's something special about stress-relieving activity. You could spend an hour sitting in a peaceful place reading a good book and get the same benefit.
Amen to that. Driving in a city with nighttime lights reflecting off of every surface makes it much harder to see than driving down an unlit country rode where there is little glare.
Reasonable belief is a fairly low standard. What you're thinking of is more like probable cause, i.e., specific, articulable facts that establish belief of guilt. "Reasonable belief" is a much lower standard. Failing to show the receipt could very well give someone reasonable belief. Closing your bag hurriedly could be reasonable belief.
Of course, it's a truism that we don't know what "reasonable belief" is in this case until it's litigated, but my essential point is still the same -- you do not have any Fourth Amendment rights against private citizens. You may have statutorily-granted rights, or common-law rights, but those (1) vary by state and (2) are subject to legislative revision.
Not criminal assault, because that requires proof of bodily injury.
Not civil assault, because that requires you to be put in apprehension of offensive bodily contact. And it's not what you consider offensive. It's what a reasonable person would consider offensive.
Truth be told, if you go to a store, they have a right to look into your shopping bags to make sure you're not stealing their merchandise. No Fourth Amendment protection attaches. If they're wrong, you go about your business.
Plus, it's just not a search as the Supreme Court (in the line of cases starting with Mapp v. Ohio) has repeatedly defined it. Search, for 4th Amendment purposes, means only searches by governmental actors or those directed by governmental actors.
No, but murder is a crime. Violation of the Fourth Amendment is not a crime. It's a procedural violation. The remedy is not jail time for the violator... it's exclusion of illegally-seized evidence. Similarly, a search by a private person (when you are an invitee on to their property) does not violate any substantive rights you have. If you don't like their practices, no one is compelling you to shop there.
Of course not. But you never had any Fourth Amendment rights against private citizens. The Bill of Rights applies exclusively and universally to government actors.
(1) That's the thing. It's a private establishment. They don't have to have any sort of cause to search your bag in their store. The 4th Amendment only applies to governmental industries. Now, when they directed the police to search there, I'm going to say that the police, relying on the sworn statements of store employees, had probable cause to conduct a search, even though they found nothing.
(2) Now this sounds a lot more like a tort. I am unaware of the Ohio false imprisonment law, but generally it involves being held in a place against your will where a person, exercising reasonable care, could not escape or leave. I think both the police and the store owners might be liable on a false imprisonment charge... but damages would be comparatively low, because our plaintiff hasn't really suffered anything other than the indignity of having people falsely accuse him of stealing.
Well, that's the first time I've ever seen the p-zombie argument brought up in this context.
When lawyers talk about intent, we're talking about something different than philosophers (I wear each hat occasionally, so bear with me). Intent is a mens rea. In fact, it's the most common mens rea. It is "proven" in a court of law by circumstantial evidence, testimony, etc. "Intent" in philosophy is something different, something subjective. It can't be "proven" by philosophical standards, because proof in philosophy is vastly different than proof in the law.
Beyond even what another poster has said, there's a problem. Those are sentencing guidelines. They don't factor in during the guilt/innocence phase of a trial. You may not know this, but most trials have two parts -- the adjudicatory phase, where your guilt or innocence is determined. Then, if you're found guilty by the fact-finder, you move on to punishment. In the federal system, you are then exposed to the sentencing guidelines. While I agree with you that this vastly limits the discretion of judges and juries to affix proper punishments, it does not provide the prosecutor any aid at guilt/innocence. In fact, these guidelines can be counter-productive for the State as well, because sometimes juries impose harsher sentences that the guidelines would call for.
You don't understand. To prove a crime, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you intentionally or knowingly possessed a controlled substance as defined by the relevant law. If you possess it, you may not do so intentionally (it was left at your house by a guest, and you had no knowledge of it). You still have to be proven guilty.
But if you have a large amount of it, then a presumption enters in favor of intent to distribute. If you do not refute that presumption, then the State does not have to prove anything. There is no actual burden shift, because you do not accept the burden of proving your innocence to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. You must merely refute that you had any intent to distribute to a standard below beyond a reasonable doubt, usually clear and convincing, though I'm sure some jurisdictions might use lower standards like preponderance of the evidence or even a scintilla.
Finally, it is not impossible to prove intent. Every criminal case in the history of the common law (with the exception of a very few strict liability crimes) requires proof of a mental state. Every capital murder trial requires proof of intent. You can easily refute any presumption within the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather, the "intelligent" and well-educated male contingent should be taking steps that the "rest" of male culture does not; lead by example... don't follow whenever you feel the tide shifting.
Actually, the holding of Falwell was that for a public figure to recover for IIED without showing that (1) the statements were false and (2) made with knowledge of that falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.
Not that I'm complaining. My easy As in debate helped.
No, I'm well aware that India has a long tradition of research into medicine. So do most ancient cultures. I'm telling you that the "Ayurvedic" medicine that you see peddled by the likes of Chopra is 100% bullshit guaranteed to fleece gullible people out of their money by tacking on an appropriately mysterious and ancient name to snake oil.
The UCC applies to all contracts for the sale of goods. A sale is a transfer of title for a price. A good is something movable at the time of sale.
A domain name/data is not a good for purposes of the UCC. Therefore, the state of relevant jurisdiction's common-law contracts doctrines will apply. If the seller makes a material misrepresentation upon which the buyer was justified in relying, then the buyer is not bound by the terms of the contract related to the material misrepresentation. You are wrong about contract law. Such "buyer beware" or "caveat emptor" doctrines are not part of modern contract law. You may be able to disclaim warranties of fitness for a particular purpose (provided the disclaimer was done properly, usually in writing and conspicuously), but in this case the buyer may not necessarily be charged with knowledge of the license agreement that the data was developed under. I'd need to spend a good few hours with the cases from the relevant jurisdiction to tell you, but you are wrong when you espouse such a caveat emptor idea about contract law.
If you're curious, I will go grab my Restatement (Second) of Contracts and point you to the relevant sections. In fact, I think I can look them up on Westlaw right now. Would you like me to do so?
Yes.
To offer some cocky bullshit like "can only offer him a cosmic sense of wholeness" and proceeded to ignore the reality of his vastly improved condition isn't scientific, it's denial.
To assume a causal connection based on correlation is logically invalid. To offer up the "cocky bullshit" explanation is proper scientific procedure, based on identifiable variables that were isolated and taken into account for when the hypothesis was formulated.
No, these things don't fit nicely into our current scientific understanding of the world, but that means we need to expand our scientific understanding, not deny the anomalies.
No, it means we must consider whether these are true "anomalies" or whether we can explain them in terms of the current theory. The reason that acupuncture cannot possibly work as claimed is that it posits a vitalistic force that is not one of the four natural forces that occur in the world. Hence, any theory that invokes such a force necessarily multiplies the types of entities we must cognize in order to save an appearance, a purported anomaly. But in this case, we can explain the "anomaly" in terms of the four existing forces -- the change in your friend's condition was due to some natural cause, such as the natural progression of the disease, a change in environment, reduced stress... hell, it could be almost anything. Blithely assuming it was the acupuncture is an example of post-hoc reasoning. Don't engage in that.
This isn't a contract for the sale of goods, so it's not a UCC contract. Common law applies. Fraud and material misrepresentation are defenses to having to live by the terms of a contract.
I'll take this as proof that the money spent on my education by my home state was a wise investment. Literacy is cool! (Or should I abbreviate this into Internet-acronym form? Is my tone too elitist? Shall I flagellate myself for being bourgeois and not adopting an appropriately proletarian stance toward intellectual matters like science? Tell me how to live, Cart!)
You also display an ignorance about "Western" medicine (I use scare quotes because doctors and scientists in the East use the same methods as Western doctors do) and the methodology by which it investigates psychology, psychosomatism and other "mind-body" connections. What you're talking about is the quasi-spiritual crap that is used to explain techniques like homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki, and whatever. That's not scientific. Science cannot comment on its correctness. But by the same token, it doesn't come with the pedigree of science -- it's pseudoscience.
So when you ask me what I will trust my health to -- actual science or pseudoscience -- don't be at all surprised when I chose the verifiable, demonstrable method.
Because Wikipedia is authoritative and represents the scholarly consensus on the matter...
Your reasoning displays a post-hoc fallacy. You confuse a correlated series of events with a causal schema between those events.
Antibiotics, which comprise only a small amount of modern medical treatment, are drugs which are deadly to bacteria and other pathogens. They are, in essence, poison for what ails you. Many of these compounds are found in some form in nature (hence, why "herbs" and things like that have some beneficial value), BUT modern science often isolates and synthesizes these compounds to be more effective, with less damaging side-effects from other incidental compounds found in the natural state.
This of course doesn't cover inoculations, sterilization, diagnostic medicine, physical therapy, or any of the other number of modern, scientific advances in the field of medicine unknown to our primitive ancestors.
And ayurvedic medicine is a term coined by con-men to fleece you out of your money.
Acupuncture is stress-relieving because it stimulates the release of endorphins, which is a quaint way of saying it gets you high. Less stress is, incidentally, better for your health. But it's nothing special about acupuncture. It's something special about stress-relieving activity. You could spend an hour sitting in a peaceful place reading a good book and get the same benefit.
I'll settle for the "12 Kingdoms" or "Lodoss War" novels being translated into English.
Amen to that. Driving in a city with nighttime lights reflecting off of every surface makes it much harder to see than driving down an unlit country rode where there is little glare.
Of course, it's a truism that we don't know what "reasonable belief" is in this case until it's litigated, but my essential point is still the same -- you do not have any Fourth Amendment rights against private citizens. You may have statutorily-granted rights, or common-law rights, but those (1) vary by state and (2) are subject to legislative revision.
Not civil assault, because that requires you to be put in apprehension of offensive bodily contact. And it's not what you consider offensive. It's what a reasonable person would consider offensive.
Truth be told, if you go to a store, they have a right to look into your shopping bags to make sure you're not stealing their merchandise. No Fourth Amendment protection attaches. If they're wrong, you go about your business.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcode.pl?c ode=TX&ls=stat&law=5&art=075&frame=right2
Plus, it's just not a search as the Supreme Court (in the line of cases starting with Mapp v. Ohio) has repeatedly defined it. Search, for 4th Amendment purposes, means only searches by governmental actors or those directed by governmental actors.
I'm aware... but that doesn't mean the 4th Amendment applies to private entities. It just does not.
Oh, and no swearing of statements ever took place. They could have been lying.Swearing doesn't mean they filled out an affidavit; "Are you lying?" "No." That's "swearing."
No, but murder is a crime. Violation of the Fourth Amendment is not a crime. It's a procedural violation. The remedy is not jail time for the violator... it's exclusion of illegally-seized evidence. Similarly, a search by a private person (when you are an invitee on to their property) does not violate any substantive rights you have. If you don't like their practices, no one is compelling you to shop there.
Of course not. But you never had any Fourth Amendment rights against private citizens. The Bill of Rights applies exclusively and universally to government actors.
(2) Now this sounds a lot more like a tort. I am unaware of the Ohio false imprisonment law, but generally it involves being held in a place against your will where a person, exercising reasonable care, could not escape or leave. I think both the police and the store owners might be liable on a false imprisonment charge... but damages would be comparatively low, because our plaintiff hasn't really suffered anything other than the indignity of having people falsely accuse him of stealing.
When lawyers talk about intent, we're talking about something different than philosophers (I wear each hat occasionally, so bear with me). Intent is a mens rea. In fact, it's the most common mens rea. It is "proven" in a court of law by circumstantial evidence, testimony, etc. "Intent" in philosophy is something different, something subjective. It can't be "proven" by philosophical standards, because proof in philosophy is vastly different than proof in the law.
Beyond even what another poster has said, there's a problem. Those are sentencing guidelines. They don't factor in during the guilt/innocence phase of a trial. You may not know this, but most trials have two parts -- the adjudicatory phase, where your guilt or innocence is determined. Then, if you're found guilty by the fact-finder, you move on to punishment. In the federal system, you are then exposed to the sentencing guidelines. While I agree with you that this vastly limits the discretion of judges and juries to affix proper punishments, it does not provide the prosecutor any aid at guilt/innocence. In fact, these guidelines can be counter-productive for the State as well, because sometimes juries impose harsher sentences that the guidelines would call for.
But if you have a large amount of it, then a presumption enters in favor of intent to distribute. If you do not refute that presumption, then the State does not have to prove anything. There is no actual burden shift, because you do not accept the burden of proving your innocence to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. You must merely refute that you had any intent to distribute to a standard below beyond a reasonable doubt, usually clear and convincing, though I'm sure some jurisdictions might use lower standards like preponderance of the evidence or even a scintilla.
Finally, it is not impossible to prove intent. Every criminal case in the history of the common law (with the exception of a very few strict liability crimes) requires proof of a mental state. Every capital murder trial requires proof of intent. You can easily refute any presumption within the law.