In the Land of the Free... you can't criticize Israel

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Sokolov, Dec 17, 2018.

  1. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

  2. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    didn't think I had much else to add, so didn't bother to respond, I don't always need the last word lol.

    you presented the articles, we both seem to agree it won't stand up in supreme court, which by it's own merit means your country does't support these laws.

    your point on how hard it is to get this to supreme court I think is a little over stated but not by much, that said it will end up there IMO due to the nature of this case.

    regardless not much reason to argue that point. everything worth discussing was discussed I believe so never responded.
  3. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    How can I overstate something by citing exactly how it works?

    You literally accused me of lying, asked for prove multiple times, and when I gave you proof you have nothing to say. Ok.
  4. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    I believe you over stated the difficulty to get a case in front of the supreme court, you gave a number of cases they see per year, out of all the cases that get brought to the supreme court, quite a few cases get escalated to that level simply in an attempt to keep their clients out of prison but even the lawyers know it's unlikely their cases will be heard. In this act it muddies the numbers a bit. but ultimately it is still quite hard to get the case heard I just think you over stated it a little, considering the relevance, if the case was required to reach this level I believe it would have a decent chance to be heard.

    Next I said I don't believe you, that's not the same as calling you a liar, this is simply that I don't take peoples perceptions of an issue at face value. someone can state a fact with 100% confidence in their point of view and still be wrong. this does not make him a liar, you posted your source as I asked, I didn't think I had much else to add after reading it, so I didn't bother replying further....though I supposed that is misleading a bit, I read through them, didn't think of much I wanted to add, went to sleep and forgot all about it, as the daily news cycle continued.
  5. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    It's not a "perception." Either this was the result of a law passed as stated in the article, or it is not.
  6. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

  7. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    to name one example the standard death sentence appeals process is always escalated to the supreme court although the vast majority of the time it's denied, until all appeals are processed the execution cannot take place so every lawyer always does these to buy their clients more time to live.

    these cases would be among the 7000 figure you mentioned although I cannot account for what percentage of it they would be, regardless these cases have next to no hope of being heard
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  8. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    That is true once you showed me the law in question, until then I only had your description of the events, even articles are often skewed by the perception of the writers, and the political bias of the companies they right for.
  9. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Except that the question of "Was a law passed?" is not one that is based on perception. It's a true/false question that is easily verifiable.
  10. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    How many death sentences cases are there in a year? How many are heard by the Supreme Court? How does this factor into the overall picture? Are death sentence cases heard more or less often than other types of cases?

    This is basically meaningless without any numbers.

    It is, as you say, a perception, and does not in any way prove that it's easier to get other cases to be heard by the Supreme Court.
  11. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    yes and I said I don't have the numbers that would tell us the exact percentage, thus I cannot tell you for sure what percentage of the 7000 it reflects, but it does reflect a percentage of the 7000 even if only 1% or less, though the numbers I can get I would estimate it as high 3 or 4%.

    all I can say is it is common practice, and that the vast majority of them are denied.

    thus even if one case is denied by the supreme court a year it would reflect on one instance of a desperate case being brought up that had next to no chance of being heard and if I doubt it would be the only one of it's kind, that said according to us statistics 2994 people are on death row as of January and many of them would be on their final stage of appeal.

    as stated here System Journal/Why So Long.ashx

    most convicts spend on average 20 years awaiting their death sentence through out the appeals process, the state supreme court is the last resort and the final phase before execution.

    if I can find any hard numbers or studies that have been done I will cite the numbers, but as of now I can only state that it occurs and not the exact ramifications of it. made no claim to the contrary.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
  12. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    I don't know when I denied that a law was passed, I denied your perception of the law being passed.

    Bill C-16 is an obvious occurence of this, Jordan peterson had a perception of the bill that it would immediately and irrevocably step on the free speech of the average peson. His perception of the bill was incorrect.

    without reading it and seeing it for myself I didn't believe your interpretation of the law at face value. why do you have so much trouble with this?
  13. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I said laws were passed. Your reply was "What laws?" as though such laws didn't exist.

    You asked me to provide the laws so you can comment on them.

    I provided the text, and you didn't comment.

    It should be quite clear that at no time did you challenge any interpretation, rather, you were challenging their very existence.

    If you had challenged the article's interpretation, I would believe you. But as far as I can tell, you didn't even really read the article, which simply stated the law was passed and you seemed to be ignorant that the laws even existed.
  14. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Yes, you did.

    You said:
    I asked for a source, and you replied:

    In other words, you believed this to be an "example" of what you initially claimed or not. If it doesn't, then why bring it up when I asked for proof?
  15. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    I don't know how this is a claim to knowing the exact effect on the 7000 number you gave.

    in none of what I said did I say I know how many it is or the exact effect. only that it occurs.

    I gave you a document that has figures showing 1600 cases got escalated between 1992 ad 2002, It goes over the process in detail stating that it occurs, and that they are reviewed and dismissed in the majority of cases. what more do you want?

    if you want examples I would need to dig through execution records and review their apeals process which admitted would only take me several hours, I don't feel like doing it right now.
  16. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    You made the claim I overstated the difficulty by citing the real numbers.

    I asked you for an explanation.

    Your explanation is currently unsatisfactory, as you yourself has admitted.
  17. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    real numbers....laughable really because the very first time I checked thse number I found it sayin 100-150 get reviewed a year but what ever.

    i don't admit my explanation is unsatisfactory, I admit the conclusion is indeterminable. not the same thing

    I explained but one example of how a case is escalated to the spreme curt for no other reason than that's what happens, I showed you documents stating that it occurs, and web sites showing it's common practice. I will link you a documentary if you wish showing exact people this is occurring to, I just don't have the exact number that would be relevant to this year to draw an exact conclusion from.

    inconclusive is not the same as unexplained, if you still don't understand I really don't care at this point, trying to explain my point of view to you is often so frustrating, you never actually want to listen.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
  18. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    So in other words, you don't really know, but you still maintain the claim that I overstated?
  19. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    omg wow...

    to be clear you deny that cases ever get escalated to th supreme court for no other reason then to benefit their clients. you believe this right now?

    you will ignore everything I posted and said this is your stance correct?

    so if I prove even one instance of this occuring yor entire position crumbles is that correct?
  20. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

Share This Page