So, are we the world police or not? I’m getting mixed signals here.

Do you want us involved in middle eastern conflicts or do you want us to stfu and stay out of it?

There’s no world where our demands are accepted at their word.

And they still won’t be punished because they own all the regulatory bodies and the courts.

You clearly haven’t educated yourself on the economic factors at play. The “richest” country in the world is rich in valuation, not monetary wealth.

There’s a difference between having a bunch of products (and businesses) that are expensive and of high quality than having a bank full of money. (See fed balance sheet)

If you actually take some time out of your day from being condescending to people that actually educate themselves on these matters and look up the current situation with liquidity (i.e. money) in the banking system, you’ll realize that the multiple bank failures in 2023 was a prelude to what’s going to be happening in 2024-2025.

This is an issue happening all over the world and people continue to not educate themselves on macroeconomics and then have the audacity to comment on it in the exact same fashion you just did.

You want a high number of quality employees? Stop reducing the standards and start increasing pay.

Full fucking stop.

I always find it ironic when religious people try to use race as a justification for their bigotry when Jesus was clearly of middle eastern descent.

It infuriates me beyond belief that I was one of the few individuals who actually read through the bible when I was forced to go to catholic school.

That and the absolutely abhorrent state of humanity really designates evidence that these books of all major religions are just the words of man to trick people into believing a god.

Malleable idiots are the easiest to control, after all. The inquisition proved this and every major violent engagement since has just been additional evidence.

Lol, it always comes back to an intellectually deficient group of morons and their baseless deity.

Because we may have separated from the other great apes several million years ago, but the great ape predilection for tribalism sure hasn’t separated from us

I agree with you there and would go a step further to note that public discourse on anonymous forums is extremely helpful for people to add context and philosophy to the understanding of the third option.

Many people here that are taking to discussing this are the outliers, just by being aware of it, and by being aware of it we can understand its potential use for good or ill and can contextualize the discussion in that frame of reference long before any of us are called to be on a jury, my concern would be those that do not take to discussing law, politics, and philosophy prior to being called to a jury being made aware of the third option with little time to reflect on its implications.

I think some people will browse the discussion and not truly reflect on the contents until possibly months later, while others that are directly engaging in the discussion will reflect currently and posit their views now while also being willing to amend those views should a more appropriate philosophy or fact be made available during the discussion.

Because different people will reflect at different rates this can have a deleterious effect on a trial if one learns of the third option too soon with little ability to reflect on the meaning and implication of a, usually unprofessional (law-career wise, not necessarily in manners), panel of jurors’ choices.

It’s always important for the jurors to respect the evidence before their own bias and sometimes people don’t have the ability to disconnect their emotions from the logic present to be able to do that, but discussions on public forums with participation from many people from a wide array of backgrounds will allow for a more diverse and effective toolset to engage a trial with, ideally leading to a ‘more effective’ ruling from the jury.

Ultimately it comes down to the wide variance of educational quality that everyone even within the same society can be impacted by, whether it be due to their own individual actions or those of the municipal, state/provincial, or national actions on the education quality and quantity, it requires active discussion and reflection not only of the choice but the ramifications the choice can have beyond the trial itself.

I tend to agree with the scholars that believe the jury is the ‘god of the courtroom’, but I am also extremely jaded by my personal experiences with various large groups of people and their seeming willingness to ignore reality to ‘fit in’ or ‘feel better’. The number of times people label me as a pessimist when I’m trying to be objectively realistic is startling and seriously concerning.

Ultimately I would hope people would, with ample reflection, direct their attentions to discovering what the ‘right’ course of action is, as opposed to the ‘moral’ or ‘easy’ choices tend to be.

If we wanted a justice system that didn’t waste money, we’d be authoritarian in nature.

The money wasted is to insure ‘as even a case’ as possible, regardless of the crime.

That’s the idea anyway.

I don’t have the data to say one way or the other. I can definitely see how public knowledge of the third option can be abused, especially these days when political alignment is more important than facts to many people.

You’re not wrong, but when you get selected for jury duty the selecting lawyer will make inquiries about your knowledge on the subject and disqualify you if you admit knowing about it.

If you bring it up to the jury, that can also have you disqualified as well as anyone else the lawyers think were influenced by the discussion.

The third option is supposed to ‘naturally’ occurr, as in the jury agrees that the law was broken but the situation is so ‘outside the scope of the law’ that the law can no longer be applied. (IIRC the judge can overrule the jury in this case, but it can be a pain)

Essentially it’s up to the judge to determine whether the jury’s conclusion is within the realm of the ‘third option’.

Jurors are expressly prevented from being educated on the third option to avoid its use.

Just so long as it doesn’t reduce their personal wealth, they’re all for ‘paying more taxes’ as long as they can use the loophole of ‘I created a charity in order to avoid paying my fair share of taxes’.

The reason is the same as Abu Sayyaf, al Queda, ISIL and other terror organizations get their hands on US or western made weapons.

Arms dealers don’t care about borders and exist specifically to spite those borders.

You realize that instead of actually addressing anything that mattered in my statement you focused exclusively on an example that would not function from presentation?

Why do you think volunteer armies are superior to conscripted armies?

Can you read through what I wrote please.

Wow, something anyone with a brain noted 20 years ago is finally being acknowledged.

Women can take any role in any NATO military. The reality is that very few women who can pass the entrance qualifications wants to continue service when they can get more money and respect from any other job.

This isn’t a ‘women get disrespected in the military’ note, this is an objective review that anyone who does service in the military is a number and is intentionally approached with minimal appreciation of their human rights and dignity because that can cause problems in the field (not to mention in most militaries, if not all, you sign away your rights as a person for training as a weapon). If the officer says ‘take the hill and die’ it’s expected that you are to take the hill and die. It does NOT matter whether or not you do paperwork, drone work, or are a combat arms trade, your superiors have to keep you at arms length so they can sacrifice you easily should the need arise.

Any woman who can do even remotely well in the military can do any other job for vastly superior pay and far more control of their lives.

Unless you’re going to push a neutral requirement for service of both sexes, no amount of bitching or complaining will ever increase the number of women in the military because they don’t have to sacrifice their health and welfare for a paycheque anywhere near as hard, it’s an option to them and not one they would willingly take when any other job that requires the same performance standard can pay more with better time and more respect than the military.

Pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest or the position of someone who has never performed military service and likely never will.

It’s not a male dominated occupation because men inherently prefer destroying their bodies and minds with overexposure to violence and extreme physical labour with one of the highest rates of injury and death just from the training alone, it’s because it’s a job easily accessible to middle or lower educated individuals that can provide an effective specialization and education that could be applied in a civilian setting.

A male and female with the same education and physical fitness standard have drastically different occupation opportunities at the mid to low end of the education spectrum, and women tend to have higher level opportunities across the board, specifically ones which do not destroy them.

This is the educated opinion of a woman who’s done close to a decade of grunt service in the military and another decade in the military industrial complex.

Thanks for the clarification, I had been under the impression that a military school was supposed to prepare you for the military, not try to ‘reform’ you for the public.

Now I know even more about a man I objectively dislike. I don’t know how I feel about that.