Only if they can show their work and argue how they came to the conclusion. Otherwise they have the same "subconscious" bias which is the training corpus.
If you pass legislation without due diligence regarding constraining a now legal activity, then it is effectively an act of support for advertising it. In this case, nearly all members of all political parties supported legalizing it, and then passed it off to the provinces and washed their hands of it until now
I've never understood that. There's a claim you are guilty of robbery. You get charged and go to court. You plead not guilty. The da insists and you go to trial. During trial, you manage to provide cctv showing that you were 1000 miles away. The jury says "not guilty".
Is there any reasonable way to say "we don't know, he might be guilty, we just didn't reach 'beyond reasonable doubt '"?
A jury I was on came to that exact conclusion. Some crimes require state of mind to be proven. In my case, a guy was at a bar and got kicked out. He went to his car and grabbed a gun and fired two shots. Ultimately the decision hanged on "did he fear for his life" when two bouncers rushed him in the parking lot.
He was probably guilty of the two counts of aggravated assault, but the prosecution never showed that it wasn't self defense, which is what Arizona required.
If he was able to get to his car and retrieve his gun and shoot at them, it seems very unlikely that the “two bouncers rushed him in the parking lot”. He could have just driven away. Much more likely he was angry about being kicked out and went back with his gun and then the “two bouncers rushed him”.
Not in the US. In Scotland, until this year, there was a "not proven" verdict, which was more or less what you just said.
The effect was the same as "not guilty", but there was an idea that allowing the jury to express doubt allowed them to avoid erring on the side of guilt. But it also confused people so they finally got rid of it.
Well the point of the trial is to make a binary decision, so it has to be guilty or not guilty to a certain standard of evidence.
Think of it as "should you bring an umbrella to go outside today?" – the weather forecast has a probability, but your job is to turn that probability into a decision based on your risk tolerance. You can't bring a 30% umbrella for a 30% chance of rain.
CCTV shows you were in the general area of the crime, but your shady friend says you were hanging out with him at the exact time the robbery happened, and the guy who says he saw you do the robbery is also kinda shady. I think it’d be reasonable for a juror to think you probably did it (because your friend is untrustworthy and has obvious incentives to lie) but didn’t do it beyond a reasonable doubt (because the witness just isn’t credible enough).
I think the difficult part may be to explain to your children why you didn't care about their future. I'm guessing you're child-free, or do you home school?
There is no 'jargon' to compare left and right leaning parties from 80 years ago, to today's versions. To exercise ANY comparison within that context in a serious tone, is to build the most flammable straw man that even laughing at it would set the argument to ashes.
eta: I realize arguing with bots and paid farms is to do a disservice to everyone, but it's just painful to see these bad faith arguments presented as 8th grade reading level trick-questions. That said, fucking vote. It's your democratic responsibility in society that is based on social governance.
No, Hitler himself said that the cooptation of "socialism" was on purpose[0], don't get fooled by simple naming, it's the easiest way one can be manipulated (e.g.: "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"):
> "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
> "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
> "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
> "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
yeah...that's my point, these namings are pretty devoid of _consistent_ meaning, both with respect to what they reference (as in your democratic people's republic of korea example) as well as across time.
Anybody claiming to believe that Nazis were socialists need to provide evidence of themselves eating urinal cake. Otherwise we know that they are misusing the etymological fallacy on purpose.
i have no idea what you're going on about, because my entire point was that the terminology meant different things at different times, purposefully obviously.
Yes people misuse words on purpose sometimes. I don't know what point you're trying to make here - calling AfD the far right and fascists isn't controversial, just because they don't call themselves socialists like Hitler did.
I don't happen to know what AfD is, so i definitely didn't call them anything.
My point was that terminology can be overloaded in contradictory ways; it's been clarified multiple times above that such is the point, including in my original comment's short last sentence.
p.s. I think we're saying essentially the same thing(s).
reply