19 May 22
@capacrapa saidWhat does this intoxication law have to do with women?
I can't believe this is happening.
I'm Canadian and I see your American news about abortion. (Her Body Her Choice!)
So Canada tries to one up that by saying an intoxicated person can plead not guilty by intoxication...and win.
Unreal. The protests...hopefully are huge and violent against the courts.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8832723/supreme-court-canada-extreme-intoxication/amp/
19 May 22
@capacrapa saidDoes Trudeau have any authority to overrule their Supreme Court?
Trudeau has to end this or leave.
- Joined
- 10 May 22
- Moves
- 769
19 May 22
@athousandyoung saidYou can get blasted drunk and commit a crime and plead not guilty by intoxication.
What does this intoxication law have to do with women?
And get off.
College drunks Rape at Will...
- Joined
- 10 May 22
- Moves
- 769
19 May 22
@athousandyoung saidI don't know...
Does Trudeau have any authority to overrule their Supreme Court?
Why so defensive?
You agree with the new law? 🤨
@capacrapa saidNo but that’s no reason to blame Trudeau. JJAdams did the same thing in the formula thread - blamed Biden for Trump’s policies. You right wingers are sneaky like that - you twist everything into political attacks.
I don't know...
Why so defensive?
You agree with the new law? 🤨
19 May 22
@capacrapa saidIt certainly is an interesting ruling.
I can't believe this is happening.
I'm Canadian and I see your American news about abortion. (Her Body Her Choice!)
So Canada tries to one up that by saying an intoxicated person can plead not guilty by intoxication...and win.
Unreal. The protests...hopefully are huge and violent against the courts.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8832723/supreme-court-canada-extreme-intoxication/amp/
But, take a step back for a second and, without taking the possible effects of the ruling into consideration, compare this:
A person is mentally unsound (say a schitzofrenic dilerious in a psychosis) and attacks a person. The law (in Canada) says he isn’t guilty of this crime, because the accused did not have control over his actions.
A person is drugged by a third party. And completely out of his head, he attacks someone. The law (in Canada) says he isn’t guilty of this crime, because the accused did not have control over his actions.
Someone is at a party and drinks to excess and is completely out of his head. He too has no control over his actions. The Canadian supreme court says herein that the state of being out of your head and not in control of your actions doesn’t differ from the other examples given.
Is that a wrong ruling? Basically, the reason for being out of your mind and completely out of control matters not, the point is that if you are out of your mind and out of control, you can’t be held accoubtable for your actions in that state.
Remember: step back and forget about consequences, it’s theoretical.
To make it slightly easier: a man is speeding in his car, he crashes, gets terrible brain damage, stumbles forth from the wreck, completely out of his mind and attacks someone coming to help him.
Can he be held accountable for that attack, even though he’s completely put of his mind (in this case probably dying, or suffering from permanent brain damage)? Or is he guilty of speeding?
I think the ruling by the supreme court is sound (out of your mind is out of your mind), but that the consequences may be less than desirable.
So, what I presume will happen is that an amendement to the actual text will be introduced by government. Making the intoxicating yourself part of it, if it leads to violent or wreckless behaviour, a far heavier crime. Which is more sound.
@shavixmir saidIs that a wrong ruling?
It certainly is an interesting ruling.
But, take a step back for a second and, without taking the possible effects of the ruling into consideration, compare this:
A person is mentally unsound (say a schitzofrenic dilerious in a psychosis) and attacks a person. The law (in Canada) says he isn’t guilty of this crime, because the accused did not have control over his act ...[text shortened]... part of it, if it leads to violent or wreckless behaviour, a far heavier crime. Which is more sound.
Yes, it allows one to set up an excuse. The other example are not self induced.
19 May 22
@jimmac saidThat’s the point of the ruling, dear.
Is that a wrong ruling?
Yes, it allows one to set up an excuse. The other example are not self induced.
It suggests that the reason for being out of one’s mind isn’t important. The fact is that if you’re out of your mind you can’t be accountable because you are non
compos mentis.
It sounds logical to me. Yes, the consequences could be terrible, but that just means the law has to change to take that into account.
@shavixmir saidWe've had those convos before. You have a view of historically racist tropes that's divorced from that history, like with Zwarte Piet. You're aware of the history but look at him as just a character, and you see black face as just make up, etc.
Oh, I have an opinion about blackfacing you won’t like then.
What I find interesting about this is how you're able to school anyone on world history with great detail filled with nuance. Your knowledge of US foreign policy is deep, as is your knowledge of Russian and European history, which you've used to obliterate some of misconceptions about the Russian invasion. Your posts on the history of the Jewish race are goddamn scholarly.
But somehow you can't make the same historical connections when it comes race. You lack historical nuance about blackface, Swarte Pete, impoverished minorities, etc., despite being fully aware the history. It's not a matter of ignorance with you, it's a matter connecting that history.
19 May 22
@vivify saidWell, thank you sir.
We've had those convos before. You have a view of historically racist tropes that's divorced from that history, like with Zwarte Piet. You're aware of the history but look at him as just a character, and you see black face as just make up, etc.
What I find interesting about this is how you're able to school anyone on world history with great detail filled with nuance. ...[text shortened]... aware the history. It's not a matter of ignorance with you, it's a matter connecting that history.
I do, however, see the historic implications of blackfacing. However, as I weigh it all on the scales of Halloween pasts, I can but conclude that if I want to dress as Mace Windu or Jules from Pulp Fiction (one of my favourite characters ever), then there is no way to pull it off without smearing my white-arsed face black.
It’s basically the same as miniature war dioramas on facebook (this is going somewhere, really..): people recreate WW2 scenes by painting models and buildings very realistically. An example:
https://images.app.goo.gl/2SvKhhk2bu93Jqtn7
But, on facebook, you can’t portray the swastika. So the photo and artwork gets banned. Bloody ridiculous.
Why are both cases ridiculous? Intent.
If intent doesn’t matter, then anything can be banned… oh yes. Pretty much coincides with my opinions on humor.
Funny old world.
And my appologies for going off-topic.
19 May 22
5 edits
@shavixmir said"Intent" is a very tough thing to prove. In cases where potentially offensive imagery is concerned all you can really do is err on the side of caution.
It’s basically the same as miniature war dioramas on facebook (this is going somewhere, really..): people recreate WW2 scenes by painting models and buildings very realistically. An example:
https://images.app.goo.gl/2SvKhhk2bu93Jqtn7
But, on facebook, you can’t portray the swastika. So the photo and artwork gets banned. Bloody ridiculous.
Why are both cases ridicu ...[text shortened]... h coincides with my opinions on humor.
Funny old world.
And my appologies for going off-topic.
Imagine a Facebook group where mothers share pictures of their kids playing in a bathtub. It's not that it's wrong, it's that the potential for misuse is far too high. What if a group of dads want to share such pics; what about a group of random people who just want to share naked photos of children. All you can really do is ban such photos altogether because the possible misuse outweighs any good that could come from it.
Likewise, how can you prove intent with a swastika? How do you make sure its use doesn't get out of hand? Is the Rhodesian flag just being used as art or to rally other racists? No way to know. It's better to just ban its use. Should someone like JJ Adams be allowed to use an avatar of someone in blackface? How do we know who just like to play pretend and who is full of hate?
It's better to keep blackface as a relic of the past than to naïvely assume everyone using it just wants to play dress up.