originalfrozenbanana @ originalfrozenbanana @lemm.ee

Posts

2

Comments

720

Joined

2 yr. ago

Odd thing to request considering the conservatives in charge of Texas government deny that burning fossil fuels causes climate change.

The vast majority of people in the DFW area do not live on a dart line, and drive to commute

Knowledge Fight is gonna be extra spicy again this week

Ok, I didn’t ask that, though. That is a completely different discussion that no one is having.

Ok but they are administering and moderating their instance according to their political beliefs about a specific nation. They’re not defending China’s economic policies at Tiananmen Square or their notions on tariffs with Uyghurs. I don’t think you answered the question in the way you think you did.

What’s that got to do with censoring some discussions about some countries?

I don’t know that I’d agree that the political beliefs of the lemmy.ml admins are lemmys greatest strengths. Certainly federation amd open source contributions are core to lemmy but support of a specific nation’s policies and actions certainly is not.

Mods and admins have enormous power to shape what can be discussed using comment moderation tools, bans, and promoted content. At the very least you should be aware of what potential biases an admin has that may inform how they moderate.

By this logic they should be perfectly fine with any sex that can’t lead to pregnancy, right?

Right?

Right?

At least when I worked at the NIH there were far more contractors than FTEs, but other places might be different

In the US, many government workers are contractors, who are easier to fire. Full time employees of the government are less common, and as you said are harder to fire, get better benefits, etc.

Depends on what you mean by matter. The point of the criminal justice system is, theoretically, to determine who breaks the law, and to punish people who break the law. In that sense it matters because Trump was found guilty in a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

If what you mean is that it will change the politics of America, certainly. Trump is now running with the specter of a conviction hanging over him. Even assuming appeals and pardons, that fundamentally changes the nature of the election. It raises real and serious questions about how he could serve if under house arrest, parole, or in prison. It forces us to reckon with the balance of powers in this country - can a person dodge justice because they attain high office, or do we hold them accountable no matter what?

If what you mean is in reality, no it probably won’t do shit.

So far that hasn’t really been tested in court, and when it has (Trump v. Anderson) it’s not been upheld in that way.

Look I’m not saying I like it. I’m saying it’s not really that straightforward.

And why do old people randomly capitalize nouns? Every Sentence reads like the just read the Written Word for the first time and wanted to give It a Try For Themselves

Those are not the minimum qualifications. They should be read as “anyone who meets them is eligible” rather than “no one who fails to meet them is eligible.” The Rehnquist court found that states could not add a felony exclusion for Congressional candidates in the 1990s and that is broadly considered to extend to the Presidency as well. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1456

If the constitution doesn’t say it, it’s not typically intended to be assumed true. The constitution doesn’t say that felons can’t be president - so we can’t assume that the states or congress could pass laws forbidding them from being president. It specifically says you can’t be president if you’re 34 or were not born a US citizen. If the writers wanted to exclude felons, they would have said so.

Gatekeeping on following the scientific method is pretty good gatekeeping if you ask me. Again, what you are arguing is anathema to centuries of scientific endeavors. You’re applying your own interpretation to something that has literally hundreds of years of meaning already, in a way that is just not right. It’s not gatekeeping any more than “a court of law” gatekeeps the concept of justice.

Yes. The constitution is actually shockingly specific about what the qualifications are. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

No other qualifications can be considered, barring a Constitutional Amendment.

I mean, Yann LeCunn disagrees with you but sure. Go on.

No it literally cannot be so defined. The last part of the scientific method is “report conclusions.” That means public scrutiny free of bias. Internal groups are not public.

This is akin to saying that a corporation doesn’t need to use the courts because it has internal judges. They might have trials, but by definition they are not doing justice.

No, they can’t. Peer review is not the peers you determine - it’s the peers of your community. Science that is not public is not science, because it cannot be independently verified and reproduced. It is not a small point, it’s one of the foundations of the disciplines of science.