Colorado Should...

Miranda rights are stupid

Truth vs. Self-interest: Observations indicate that individuals are more inclined to speak truthfully before they read their Miranda rights. After these rights are presented, their responses tend to favor their self-interest. The quest for truth should outweigh any personal bias.
Avoiding 'Assembly-line Justice': The current legal system often falls into a pattern of "one-size-fits-all," leading to instances where individuals may avoid penalties based on technicalities, such as not being read their Miranda rights. This uniform approach lacks the nuance needed to address diverse situations and can disrupt the pursuit of justice.
Relevance of Statements: Miranda rights shouldn't impact the veracity of a statement. The information individuals provide before their rights are read should still be admissible in court, as it's not inherently untruthful.
Lawyers Evading Justice: Critics argue that Miranda rights serve as a tool for legal professionals to circumvent justice, enabling them to exploit loopholes and technicalities.
Encouraging Dishonesty: Reading Miranda rights may inadvertently remind potential offenders to deceive the police rather than providing an honest account of events.
Non-unanimous Decision: The Miranda ruling wasn't unanimous; it passed with a 5 to 4 decision. This close call questions its infallibility and the reverential treatment it often receives.
Benefits to Attorneys: Critics suggest that the "right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning" merely increases attorneys' workload instead of facilitating justice.
Unintended Consequences: Although Miranda rights were created to address coercive interrogation, some argue they have inadvertently led to more deceptive practices by reminding potential criminals to consult an attorney before speaking.
Shock vs. Self-interest: In the immediate aftermath of an incident, individuals are often shocked into answering truthfully. However, reading them their Miranda rights can shift their focus towards self-preservation.
Flaws in Law: Laws that don't penalize the guilty are flawed, argue critics. Many guilty individuals have avoided their lawful punishment due to technicalities involving Miranda rights.
Questionable Necessity: There are instances where it's clear that a confession was given voluntarily and was not coerced. Critics argue that Miranda rights seem irrelevant in such situations and do not serve their intended purpose.

Reasons to disagree

Being read your Miranda rights is good because an innocent person will be reminded to get their facts straight before they start talking.

Dawkins is stupid when he says that God's jealousy contributes to him being one of the most unpleasant character in all fiction

Dawkins said: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Reasons to agree:%

When God said he was a jealous God, he was telling his followers to not worship Ba'al. Worshipers of Ba'al would get their Golden statues glowing hot, and put living babies on the alter. It wasn't wrong for God to tell his followers to not worship other other Gods. If I really was the true God, and I had worked miracles, to prove it, then I would be jealous also if people started worshiping Ba'al.

Just because your an athiest doesn't mean you can't think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

Webpages that agree:

http://www.gotquestions.org/jealous-god.html

The fact that God allowed Men, Women, and Childen be killed so Israel could have a homeland is problematic: Score: -3

Reasons to agree: %

What is not to understand. It contradicts that God is Love, and that God killed innocent children.

Its not just problematic that God let bad things happen, like letting children die, but if the Old Testament is to be believed, that he caused them to be killed. Religious scholars go to so much effort to say that God put Adam and Eve in the Garden, but he had to let them make up their own mind, so that he couldn't be blamed for causing them to suffer, but that all goes out the window when he commands Israel to kill whole cities.

R2A(+): 2 R2AA(+): 0 R2DA(-): 0

Reasons to disagree: %

Problematic does not mean insurmountable. The argument most often given is that it served the greater good. This argument says that God is allowed to follow the belief that the ends justifies the means. At first it might seem that only nutcases use this kind of logic. This is because most of us never face life and death decisions. But everyone in the military has to come to some sort of peace with the belief that their actions might kill innocent civilian, but may in the long run serve the greater good. A reasonable, compassionate person, who has reasons to believe in God, who would never use this logic for himself, can give his God more latitude in doing things he doesn't understand.

There is much worse things that happen to people than being killed.

Problematic does not mean insurmountable. You can believe that most of the Old Testament was inspired, but parts of it were messed around with by scribes, and those who took care of the records.

Ethically God is allowed to follow the Bill Cosby principle: "You know, I brought you in this world, and I can take you out."

R2D(-): 4 R2AD(-): 1 R2DD(+): 0 Total Score: -3

The God of the Old Testament...

I have a friend who's Dad was a religious leader. He went on a 2-year mission for his church. Now he is not a big Richard Dawkins fan. He recently posted this on his facebook page...

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

I would like to take these accusations one at a time.

When God said he was a jealous God, he was telling his followers to not worship Ba'al. Worshipers of Ba'al would get their Golden statues glowing hot, and put living babies on the alter. It wasn't wrong for God to tell his followers to not worship other other Gods. If I really was the true God, and I had worked miracles, to prove it, then I would be jealous also if people started worshiping Ba'al. This accusation is stupid, and arrogant, and shows that he is not interested in seeing both sides of an issue. Anyone who spent more than a day looking into this issue would realize that Dawkins is an idiot... God cannot be jealous in the sense that you and I are... over people's houses, and stuff, or the way that unpleasant characters are from history... this is just a stupid guy twisting words, to say how stupid his opponents are...

But if I am missing his point on jealousy, please tell me...

The "petty" thing holds a little more water for me... I'm thinking of those kids that made fun of Elijia and God sent a bear to eat them... that seems sort of petty, from the outside, but they must have needed it, we are not getting the whole story, or it was incorrectly translated, but I agree with Dawkins on this one, that given the text we have, we might be able to find some petty examples of God's behavior... Also those people who tried to steady the ark... yes, they knew the rules, but its not like they were trying to do wrongly, they just saw it wobbling, and reached out to keep it from falling... of course only stupid people make conclusive decisions, without having all the evidence, but from just the text, it seems sort of petty to kill them for just trying to help... perhaps they were evil, and wanted to break the laws, but again, just from the text, I will concede this to Dawkins, unless someone has more evidence, or ideas...

"Unjust" goes with petty... the bears, the steading of the ark... however, if you look at the Old Testament as a whole, the God of the Old Testament is a big promoter of justice... the Solomon Story, about cutting the baby in half: this is a story that tries to get at the truth... The God of the Old Testament promotes justice, more than other books from that time... I would really like to look into it, and get a count of all the stories that seem to promote justice, and those that don't. When Jacob stole the birth-right by tricking his Dad, that does not seem to promote justice... the children of Egypt being killed, just because Pharaoh was stupid does not seem to be just, the killing Sodom and Gamora is fine with me, we are told they were wicked, and God bent over backwards to save those who were righteous... I feel this is self-rightouse of me to start this argument, as though I am the first person to think about this... I know this argument has been going on for a couple of thousands of years... if the God of the Old Testament is just... but I would like to think that a group of amateurs like us could outline, much like Wikipedia, the best arguments for and against the justice of God, and that will continual refinement, we could outline and continually improve our representation of the arguments for and against the belief... One of the apostles said that to believe in God is to know that all the rules will be fair and their will be wonderful surprises. I agree. If you believe in God, you have to believe that eventually everything will make sense, but in the mean time, lets keep our humility, but do the best we can...

"unforgiving control-freak". This gets me mad at Dawkins. He is just throwing mud to be man. What I want is Data. I want Dawkins to try and prove his point, and not just throw mud, and if we are right, I want us to prove it. I want to prove it once and for all... I want to gather all the best data, so that people in the future, will, with very little work, see the arguments made by both sides, well documented, researched, etc. Someone who creates and runs the universe is by definition in control. It is stupid to say that the person who bakes a cake, controls the heat, and ingredient too much. He should just let the oven do what it wants, and let the wheat go free...

"Control-freak" is a 3rd grade accusation, and proves why Dawkins should be ignored. However he is not ignored, and so when he makes substantial accusations, like, "unforgiving", we have to put-up or shut up. Is the God of the Old Testament "unforgiving". Who are major sinners that got a second chance in the Old Testament... he didn't just Kill Pharaoh... he was always sending prophets to "warn" sinning countries. This seems forgiving of sin...

Well that's enough for now: What do you think?

Words of Eternal Life

One of my favorite quotes stories is when Chris explained the sacrement and it weirded everyone out and they stopped following him. Then he asked his apostles or disciples if they were going to leave too. And I think it was Peter who said, Were would we go? You are the only one that has the words of Eternal Life. I thought that was cool

It was petty of God to send bears to kill youths that made fun of Elijah: Score -3

Reasons to agree: %

Reasons to disagree: %

You can believe that the Old Testament was mostly inspired, but not believe every story.

Short stories don't tell every detail. You shouldn't judge the God of the Old Testament from one short story without knowing all the detail. It is better to focus on all the stories, and try to get a general direction.

This story was probably exaggerated over the years, so that it no longer relates what really happened. The moral is to not make fun of religious leaders, but well intended translators over the years probably oversimplified the story, so that the story sounds unjust to our more sensitive ears.

R2D(-): 3 R2AD(-): 0 R2DD(+): 0 Total Score: -3

It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented.

Anyways I want to do a really good job of outlining the major arguments about immigration, as I think it is one of the major issues facing our country. So what I want to do is sort of a wikipedia style group effort of outlining the issues… with that said, I'll just jump in.

John McCain said: "It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented." He said this in a May 13, 2005 press release titled "Members of Congress Introduce Comprehensive Border Security & Immigration Reform Bill [S 2611].

In the future, I would like to outline all the issues here, but for now we can have a Normal conversation.

Here are some of the reasons that I have heard to disagree with McCain:

No one is proposing that we "round illegal aliens up".

Illegal Aliens came to America on their own; they don't need someone to drive them away

You wouldn't have to get all 11 million illegal aliens to go back, just 1/2 of them in 10 years would be a good start.

According to Wikipedia their are 77 million students in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States). Lets be conservative and say that only 1 in 7 of our elementary and secondary students ride a school bus each morning. This means that our local communities all transport 10 million students each morning. Their are buss drivers that are not driving buses each and every summer, and kids that are not going to school. Local communities could run a program that would only last each summer. Whenever illegal immigrants are found, during the operation of normal police work, they could be incarcerated until their is a buss load of them, a buss driver, and a couple of policemen all get to take a field trip to Mexico. If they have legitimate reasons to be in America, they can file the necessary paperwork from their home country.

Have I forgot anything? Can we say something better? Instead of just producing quality, I want to go back and say things as best as they can be said. If you agree with McCain, why?

A technique taught in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, by Roger Fisher and William L. Ury, is to focus on interest not positions. In addition to having a place for listing pros and cons, I would like to have a place for the listing of interest. If we are going to make progress sometimes we have to stop listening to the stupid things people are saying, and try to figure out what their motivation is, and what makes them want to say those stupid things. It will often turn out that the real reason someone supports something has nothing to do with the arguments that they try to use to advance their ideas.

With that said, here are some of the interest of those who agree and disagree with McCain:

Interest of those who agree:

The desire to see America grow in size to compete with China.

The desire to make America look more like them, if they are Hispanic.

The desire for America to be more diverse, if they have liberal guilt.

The desire to see America more Catholic.

Financial interest if your company would have to move overseas if not for cheap illegal labor.

Financial interest if you just don't like paying your workers very much.

Interest of those who disagree: %

Rule of law (if some people have to come in the legal way, and wait in line, everyone should have to come in the legal way, and wait their turn in line).

The desire to not see America become more Catholic.

The desire to keep American culture less diverse, or with positive spin more "unified".

Well, I got things started, please HELP ME OUT! I think that we can basically set all the arguments about 10 million aside, and until you can convince people that the rule of law is more important than whatever their underlying interest are, we are going to have a tough row to hoe. So that is my next post: The rule of law is more important than compassion for illegal immigrants.

Unions are the average person's lobbying firm

Reasons to disagree:

Unions often represent the needs of the "average people", as long as you define "average people" as union members. Union members are often average people, i.e. good hard working Americans. However, more precisely, unions are the lobbying firm oftheir union members. It may be true that the "average person's" needs are aligned with the union members, but often the union member's desires may conflict with the desire of the larger community of average people. For instance the average person may want the government's budget to be balanced, however a union, as any good special interest, is focused on a more narrow band of goals: the desires of union members. The average person may want to have their kids to have good teachers. The average person may not have a pension, may have to pay for their health care, and may want the people teaching his children to be rewarded and advanced with merit pay. In all these cases the union is going to be lobbying against the desires of the average person, and for the desires of its members. The whole problem is special interest. Good historians are saying this is what destroyed Rome: politicians only cared about their needs. Special interest only cared about their needs. You had the rich merchants trying to get richer, the new Romans vs. the Old Romans. No one cared if the whole thing burned, as long as each group was able to fight for their dirty little scrap of what was left. We need to come reason TOGETHER and determine what is good for the country as a whole.

The LDS church is fond of saying that "no success can compensate for failure in the home".

A home is a house with love. A house is made up of many components, and so is love.

I propose that no success can compensate for failure in the bedroom. However this belief can often lead to performance anxiety, which all goes to the larger issue of how you define success...

But lets expand the analogy. What other rooms are their in a house? Very hungry Mormons believe that no success can compensate for failure in the kitchen.

Our toilet plunger can attest that no other success can compensate for failure in the bathroom...

The church has been very successful at keeping many facts in the closet, but less successful at keeping people in the closet.

Of course what they mean is no success can compensate for failure with your family. But does passing around sayings like this make anyone's life better? Do people really decide to succeed at work, or politics instead of succeeding at home? Or are some people just bad at one aspect of their lives, and good at another? Or are people who succeed in work, more likely to succeed at home?

All in all, if our income providers didn't succeed outside of the home, we wouldn't have a home, which sort of renders the whole argument pointless.

As far as individuals are concerned, many Bill Clinton supporters would disagree with the conclusion. That he did a lot to help the world, and that he would like to be judged for his life in general, not just the way his relationship with his wife worked out. Who knows what went wrong their? Was she just not into succeeding in the bedroom with him, or he with her? Do they like each other? Did they succeed? Not in the Mormon sense of the word, in that they were not faithful. But the Mormons are right, as a whole. Many societal problems as a whole can be caused by the family falling apart. But is it a matter of compensation? Do people really choose success outside of the family and therefore they have failure in the family. I don't think so. It wasn't Clinton's desire for success in politics that hurt his family, it was his desire to have success with other women...

Good church leaders will point out that success at church can not, and should not, compete with success at home. But if the real goal is choosing success at home, by spending more time there, instead of success at work, why are young fathers asked to spend 8 hours at church on Sunday away from their family?

I know, I know, your trying to do the whole it takes a village thing, sometimes it doesn't work.

I know its not 100% true, if you define truth as the way I was told it was. But the 3 witnesses never denied it. Did my ancestors see something in Kirkland?

Is any of it true? Maybe its not "true" but it has a good system of promoting only charity minded people, willing to make sacrifices for the community, and able to succeed in business and in the home. Maybe it is good, even if its not true. No. Things that aren't what they say they are, are not of God. But nothing is what it says it is. But maybe I don't care. All I want is success. I want to have success, personally, and with my family. And I want them to find success. I want what everyone wants. I want what the church wants, even if they make nonsensical weird sayings that I don't want to carry around as truisms anymore to describe the particular success that they want.

We must not allow a nuclear 9-11

Reasons to agree:

Ron Paul can say all he wants that Iran won't ever use a nuclear weapon against us. He has a right to evaluate the intelligence, and come to that conclusion. However everyone would have to agree that we must not allow a nuclear 9-11. That is the starting point. It is so obvious that it has to be acknowledged. To allow a nuclear 9-11 would be the worst thing that could happen to this planet. If our federal government can not tell our citizens that they are going to be willing to kill hundreds or thousands of Iranian scientist and their families who might be with them at these nuclear facilities, to prevent them from getting the bomb, then we need to tell the residents of New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago to consider moving outside of the blast zone. The leaders in Iran are so stupid that their may be greater than a 3% chance that they would try to sneek a bomb into our country.

The sacrifices proposed to prevent a nuclear 9/11 are not as bad as living through a nuclear 9/11. 9/11 caused thousands of Deaths, a nuclear 9/11 could kill millions. Most of the sacrifices being proposed, that supposedly limit our privacy, are worth the price. It's easy to make childish theoretical arguments that sound good on paper, about never invading people's privacy. But you don't have a right to privacy in public places.

A nuclear 9/11 would likely result in the complete destruction in any nation that sympathizes with Jihadist. We should, of course, morn our own dead. But it would necessarily result in the death of many more people from Jihadist supporting countries.

We all want our civil liberty, but often one persons privacy is not worth all of our lives.

No other likely challenge that we face besides a nuclear 9/11 has the potential of killing millions of Americans.

The primary responsibility of the US federal government is protecting is protecting the US citizens.

Muslims all over the world should try to prevent a nuclear 9/11. Reasons that Muslims should agree: A nuclear 9-11 would not cause America to withdraw from the world stage. We would destroy any country that has people in it that smiled on the day that America was attacked, the wrest of the world would support us in any vengeance that we wanted, and our culture would not be the one that would go up in flames afterword. A nuclear 9-11 would not stop the spread of western culture. A nuclear 9-11 would not stop the spread of woman's rights, or gay rights. A nuclear 9-11 would not stop the spread of democracy. A nuclear 9-11 would not accomplish any of the goals of the Muslim community.We will prevent one country from invading another country. You don't need to worry, Iran, that someone will attack you if you don't have a nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon will make you less secure, not more secure.

A nuclear 9/11 would harm the environment more any other disaster that our country could face. Even liberals who are concerned with overcrowding should be concerned (just joking!).

A nuclear 9/11 would likely result in more war, which would harm the environment more than WWII.
Even liberals who are concerned with overcrowding should be concerned (just joking!).

Sure, this is a non-specific argument which, if in-artfully used, could justify actions that would actually result in more nuclear terrorism. You are reading into it that we will take this argument, and use it stupidly, but the argument is still sound. Perhaps it is done through diplomacy, perhaps it is done in other ways, but it is better that we kill 100 Iranian scientist and their families, than we let them build a bomb that has a 10% chance of killing 10 million Americans. Just doing the math, it is better that 100 Iranians die than 1,000,000 Americans. Perhaps, the life of a free person is of more worth than the life of someone living in Iran. It is less likely that the American beats his wife, kills his sister in honor killings, is contributing to hardcore persecution of minorities, etc. It is less likely that an Iranian is working towards a cure for cancer, and more likely that they are planning how to kill the Jews.

Reasons to disagree:

We can't control our borders so well that we could prevent a nuclear suitcase bomb from being snuck into our country.

Interests

Probable interest of those who agree:

The environment.

Mankind

Preventing Human suffering

Preventing the cycle of violence that would result when America demanded vengeance

Fear of terrorist attacks

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Freedom from government monitoring, from those who are resisting CIA and FBI expansion of powers

Freedom from other countries telling them to not build bombs, from countries like Iran that is seeking nuclear powers.

Revenge for perceived wrongs, from religious Muslims who want a nuclear 9-11 in America

Stopping the spread of Western Culture, from religious Muslims who want a nuclear 9-11 in America and think a nuclear 9-11 would cause America to withdraw from the world stage.

Stopping the spread of women's rights, from religious Muslims who want a nuclear 9-11 in America and think a nuclear 9-11 would cause America to withdraw from the world stage.

Stopping the spread of sexual freedom, from religious Muslims who want a nuclear 9-11 in America and think a nuclear 9-11 would cause America to withdraw from the world stage.

Stopping the spread of the right to divorce, from religious Muslims who want a nuclear 9-11 in America and think a nuclear 9-11 would cause America to withdraw from the world stage.

Stopping the spread of homosexual rights, from religious Muslims who want a nuclear 9-11 in America and think a nuclear 9-11 would cause America to withdraw from the world stage.

Fear that someone would attack, if they don't have a bomb to scare them away.

Common Interest

Prevention of the loss of innocent life.

Prevention of injustice.

Fear that things could get out of hand, or would not go according to plan.

Opposing Interest

The spread of American culture

The spread of Islam

National pride

The spread of perceived sinfulness

Jealousy (if your older brother has a BB gun you want one too). I am tying in those who are not concerned with nuclear proliferation to those who do not believe we need to stop a nuclear 911.

Score:

At a later date, the reasons, books, and web-pages will be given a score. They will then contribute a percentage of a point to the overall idea score, based on their individual score. Below are the total number of:

Reasons to agree: +1

Reasons to disagree: -0

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

The US Federal Government should help threatened Islamic states with public schools

Reasons to agree:

Reasons to disagree:

Books that agree:

Books that disagree:

Interests

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Images That agree:

Images That disagree:

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

Reasons to agree: +1

Reasons to disagree: -0

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

Jihadist are most likely to use a nuclear weapon

Reasons to agree:

Jihadist are not trying to lift their country up, they are just trying to bring down America.

Jihadist are willing to commit suicide in order to advance their cause.

Jihadist have no return address for us to bomb.

Jihadist don't think that we can retaliate. They do not know that we would destroy the middle east if a bomb was detonated in America, Europe, or Asia. They may miss calculate their strength, or think God will help them, making them most likely to use a nuclear weapon. They don't have an organized command structure, and so their are thousands of
Jihadist trying to get nuclear weapons. If any of them miscalculate our willingness to destroy the middle east, they could make a fatal mistake.

Reasons to disagree:

Jihadist know that if a nuclear bomb went off in America, the whole world would destroy them.

We can tell where a bomb would come from. Anyone who allowed the bomg to go off would be killed.

Jihadist have lots of return addresses. If someone smuggles a nuclear bomb into the United States and detonates it we will bomb the middle east out of existence. Fire and sand make glass, and when we're done with the middle east it will look like Superman's dad's apartment on Krypton.

Score:

Reasons to agree: +4

Reasons to disagree: -3

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.