|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
2nd May 2017, 10:03 AM | #81 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore, So do our minutes hasten to their end . . . WS |
|
2nd May 2017, 10:28 AM | #82 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,511
|
I'd love to have them write essays that must include 3 common fallacies, then have them switch papers to make sure they accomplished it.
Assignments for persuasive essays, usually in the 5-paragraph format, are often tied to literature reading in class. But that's not necessarily the most productive approach, because if they are not engaged in the literature they won't be able to cite 3 separate reasons supporting their thesis statement. Get them to write about something that matters to them. They are naturally critical thinkers, but they have to learn that stating one reason 3 different ways is not the same thing as giving 3 reasons to support their point of view. It could work pretty well in middle school as well. |
2nd May 2017, 11:01 AM | #83 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
|
2nd May 2017, 02:30 PM | #84 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
|
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." |
|
2nd May 2017, 02:36 PM | #85 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
|
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." |
|
2nd May 2017, 03:00 PM | #86 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
|
|
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
2nd May 2017, 07:37 PM | #87 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
I'm glad it is nigh-impossible to Amend the Constitution to get rid of the First Amendment.
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
2nd May 2017, 10:51 PM | #88 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
|
3rd May 2017, 05:56 PM | #89 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
3rd May 2017, 06:00 PM | #90 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
|
|
3rd May 2017, 07:02 PM | #91 |
post-pre-born
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
|
|
3rd May 2017, 11:45 PM | #92 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
Why not ?
The Patriot Act drove a carriage and four through a range of constitutional rights with nary a peep. Changing libel laws (with a handy "parliamentary privilege" exemption for lawmakers) may not even require a constitutional amendment, merely a SCOTUS ruling to show that the libel laws are indeed compatible with the existing first amendment. |
4th May 2017, 12:29 AM | #93 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
|
Let's see.
First, there aren't federal libel laws. There is exactly 0% chance that Congress is going to add one just because Donald Trump's feelings get hurt when the media tells the truth about him, much less one that would allow him to successfully sue them. Even if Republicans voted 100% lockstep in favor, they would not have the votes. They don't have 60 votes in the Senate and no way even a single Democrat would vote for it. Not that all Republicans would be in favor anyway. Plenty of them are smart enough to know that such a bill would bite their side in the ass as it would also allow Democrats to go after right wing media. Trump can't even get Congress to fund his stupid wall, but he is going to get them to do this? Come one. As for the Supreme Court, they have made rulings that make it basically impossible for politicians to successfully sue for libel. While it is theoretically possible for them to overturn this precedent, they would first need a case to do it. Like Congress passing a law and it getting challenged. Which as I already explained, is not going to happen. And even if they did, what reason do they have to change it, because an unpopular president wants them to? Please. These people have lifetime appointments, Trump has no leverage over them. Seriously, this is not going to happen. I suspect that Trump told his people to look into it. And they did and found there was no way to do it or already knew. But Reince can't well go on TV and say that his boss is a petulant idiot who wants to implement an unconstitutional plan that won't happen. |
4th May 2017, 12:47 AM | #94 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
|
4th May 2017, 03:13 AM | #95 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
4th May 2017, 07:21 AM | #96 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
Getting back to the topic of this thread, I have a serious question: Among statements that are non-libelous under current US law, what kinds would become libelous if the laws were changed as Trump desires?
Let's consider two concrete examples, neither of them libelous under current law. Let's suppose someone says, in writing, that some public figure, such as former President Barack Obama, is a thin-skinned narcissist. Suppose further that this statement is not accompanied by evidence, and its author not only refuses to offer evidence in support of that statement but also throws a hissy fit when challenged to provide evidence. Does Trump want that kind of thing to become libel? Consider also a less extreme example. Suppose someone says, in writing, that some public figure such as current President Donald Trump is a thin-skinned narcissist, providing numerous examples in support of that claim and providing still further examples in support when challenged. Does Trump want that kind of thing to become libel as well? My guess is that Trump wants the second of those examples, but not the first, to be considered libel. |
4th May 2017, 07:24 AM | #97 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
|
|
4th May 2017, 08:58 AM | #98 | ||
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
||
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|||
4th May 2017, 09:27 AM | #99 |
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13) Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas (aka SOMD)
Posts: 32,151
|
Didn't they try that under John Adams? Something called the Sedition Acts. Granted, those were to stop "false statements critical about the federal government", but in this political climate I don't see one party accepting the critique of their opposition as being true or accurate.
|
__________________
-Aberhaten did it - "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe -Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping - Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm |
|
4th May 2017, 09:45 AM | #100 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
4th May 2017, 10:09 AM | #101 |
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13) Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas (aka SOMD)
Posts: 32,151
|
|
__________________
-Aberhaten did it - "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe -Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping - Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm |
|
4th May 2017, 11:14 PM | #102 |
post-pre-born
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
|
|
4th May 2017, 11:34 PM | #103 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
I was thinking about this again while I was mowing the lawn yesterday and then I saw a story about President Trump's latest Executive Order protecting religious freedom.....
If you want to introduce a bill to curtail freedom of speech then you want to name and pitch it in a way that seems to protect free speech. I'd therefore call it the First Amendment Protection Act (I admit that FAPA isn't a great name) and say something to the effect that the United States is fighting an asymmetrical war against Islamic Terrorism, external involvement in the election process and fake news. Faceless people and organisations are able to spread all kinds of lies on the internet and there's no effective redress. By the time someone in politics can take action it's too late and oftentimes there's no-one to sue for libel. Therefore in order to protect freedom of speech, and ensure that the political process is protected against foreign interference and Islamic Terrorists, the FAPA will make it easier for sitting or prospective representatives to seek redress for inflammatory, untrue or negative comments made against them. Exemptions include comments made by sitting or prospective representatives (or their agents) as part of the democratic process. In order to prevent local partiality from allowing a representative to get justice, the FAPA will apply at a federal level. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|