You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[+]7e62ce850 points0 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]7e62ce85[S]0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
I'm not. I'm part of the conversation about what to do in this country, so are Jews
They are not. Jewish religious texts call for the death, robbery and enslavement of goys. At the very best all Jews should be quarantined in Israel and I honestly wouldn't lift a finger if the US miraculously went full fourth reich and wiped them all out.
Judaism is explicitly banned under the Emergency Nation constitution.
You don't treat oil like water
Legal systems must treat all humans the same. All of your examples are irrelevant. The job of a legal system is to judge human actions. Human actions are comparable.
If certain groups receive different treatment it becomes impossible to say whether they are actually better or worse or if they simply benefit or suffer from the legal system.
Over time this leads to the total destabilization of that society because if the legal system does not represent reality people will not rely on it and without civilized law you have only sectarian violence.
The private sector may not steal or defraud me without my seeking restitution in civil court.
You should know that was not what I was talking about.
Firstly, we get along. I'm working through the same ideas you are. Free market separatism. I'm deep into Propertarianism and the Alternative Hypothesis.
I don't want to talk past each other. I want to hear what you have to say about the banking discrimination I mentioned.
also I didn't mean to suggest Jewish people talk about EN, I meant USA.
[+]7e62ce850 points0 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]7e62ce85[S]0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
I don't want to talk past each other.
Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh.
I'm deep into Propertarianism and the Alternative Hypothesis.
While I like parts of propertarianism I think it has some flaws. Specifically things such as suing people for not telling the truth.
It is scientifically impossible to prove truth, you can only disprove theories.
Even then determining truth can be hard and no one here likes censorship I am sure.
That makes propertarianism unworkable in my mind. I'm down with strong property rights otherwise which is also in our constitution.
Alternative hypothesis seems like a cool site. Haven't seen it before.
I want to hear what you have to say about the banking discrimination I mentioned. [...] For instance, banks take race into account when the lend to clients. A black person with the same credit score as a white person is more likely to default on their loan, so the banks racially discriminate such that whites and blacks have the same rate of default because more blacks are denied loans. This is the system working as intended to minimize bad loans using all available information.
My answer to this was that the private sector can do as they like (see our rule 8 making private discrimination a right).
I will elaborate. A bank is a business, therefore if someone is truly discriminated against they can just go somewhere else.
Now the more difficult question is if true statistical information can be used in the courts? Maybe if you could show the accused had a specific gene known to cause aggression it could play a very very small part.
However, generally you need "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" and statistical information would be a minuscule part of that.
Generalizations are useless in specific legal situations. We would not want a white murderer to go free just because "most whites don't commit crime" either.
(This is exactly what Jewish judges do and how they subvert the legal system.)
Further we do not have evidence that blacks are in fact discriminated against by banks to a significant degree. It is entirely possible that they simply don't qualify for loans at the same rates as others.
A bank would be losing money by turning away blacks that qualified.
We know that the racist south of the US would hire blacks when they worked for less despite any racism there may have been. Money seems to conquer racism.
I didn't mean to suggest Jewish people talk about EN, I meant USA.
They can talk about us, just not live with us.
The US, sure I guess although they pretty much own it by now. All the West is crumbling the way I see it so they can do what they like.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 7e62ce85 [S] ago (edited ago)
They are not. Jewish religious texts call for the death, robbery and enslavement of goys. At the very best all Jews should be quarantined in Israel and I honestly wouldn't lift a finger if the US miraculously went full fourth reich and wiped them all out.
Judaism is explicitly banned under the Emergency Nation constitution.
Legal systems must treat all humans the same. All of your examples are irrelevant. The job of a legal system is to judge human actions. Human actions are comparable.
If certain groups receive different treatment it becomes impossible to say whether they are actually better or worse or if they simply benefit or suffer from the legal system.
Over time this leads to the total destabilization of that society because if the legal system does not represent reality people will not rely on it and without civilized law you have only sectarian violence.
You should know that was not what I was talking about.
[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Firstly, we get along. I'm working through the same ideas you are. Free market separatism. I'm deep into Propertarianism and the Alternative Hypothesis.
I don't want to talk past each other. I want to hear what you have to say about the banking discrimination I mentioned.
also I didn't mean to suggest Jewish people talk about EN, I meant USA.
[–] 7e62ce85 [S] ago (edited ago)
Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh.
While I like parts of propertarianism I think it has some flaws. Specifically things such as suing people for not telling the truth.
It is scientifically impossible to prove truth, you can only disprove theories.
Even then determining truth can be hard and no one here likes censorship I am sure.
That makes propertarianism unworkable in my mind. I'm down with strong property rights otherwise which is also in our constitution.
Alternative hypothesis seems like a cool site. Haven't seen it before.
My answer to this was that the private sector can do as they like (see our rule 8 making private discrimination a right).
I will elaborate. A bank is a business, therefore if someone is truly discriminated against they can just go somewhere else.
Now the more difficult question is if true statistical information can be used in the courts? Maybe if you could show the accused had a specific gene known to cause aggression it could play a very very small part.
However, generally you need "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" and statistical information would be a minuscule part of that.
Generalizations are useless in specific legal situations. We would not want a white murderer to go free just because "most whites don't commit crime" either.
(This is exactly what Jewish judges do and how they subvert the legal system.)
Further we do not have evidence that blacks are in fact discriminated against by banks to a significant degree. It is entirely possible that they simply don't qualify for loans at the same rates as others. A bank would be losing money by turning away blacks that qualified.
We know that the racist south of the US would hire blacks when they worked for less despite any racism there may have been. Money seems to conquer racism.
They can talk about us, just not live with us.
The US, sure I guess although they pretty much own it by now. All the West is crumbling the way I see it so they can do what they like.