Nanny State / Political Correctness gone mad ?

[jbmajoor]

Xa, typical expensive Eurocratic project from Brussels. I dislike it. In a unpleasant moment, these polical correctness bastards could be also take a look to our high heels. And the fucking bastards could even forbade highheels because they are 'unhealtly' Well, they can never stop smoking, drinking, highheel wearing, McDonald eating, etc. When the bastards forbade it, it goes underground. Mafia will be the only winner. Think about the U.S. prohibition of the 20s. And in Sweden, the state-owned spirit/liqueur shops have only 37% of the sprit/liqueur market. Rest is bought on the taxfree ferries or illegal home-made. Swedish folks don't drink less, probably even more. Unfortunality, still in the Netherlands we've too many polical correctness. There are people killed because they said or wrote polical incorrect things (Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh). Another are in great danger (Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

[jbmajoor]

.... let's just say that 'politician' is not my favourite word, and 'local government politician' is even less so.

For me: the only favourite of politican are the high-heeled boots, who some women in that area wear.

Woman Boots, in Dutch dameslaarzen, the Queen of the shoes

[TXT-1]

to take a modified Braveheart quote "they can take our work boots, they can take away our boring flats, and they can take away our joggers (runners), but they can never take our High Heeled Freedom!!!!!" political BS only divides people, it doen't bring them together! safety checks on candles: bloody typical political BS Politician: not my favorite word in the dictionary either. Personally though, I don't walk on eggshells as I am 100% Politically Incorrect! later, TXT-1

[jbmajoor]

to take a modified Braveheart quote "they can take our work boots, they can take away our boring flats, and they can take away our joggers (runners), but they can never take our High Heeled Freedom!!!!!"

Superb :rofl:

[xaphod]

Seen in a supermarket in-store bakery ....

Caution .... hot bread

I'm lost for words.

I think I need to wear a t-shirt saying

'Caution .... this person may thump people who write nanny-state idiocies'

Xa

[chris100575]

Going out of your way to protect people from their own stupidity can only be detrimental to the collective gene pool. For example, I borrowed a Black & Decker hot air gun to strip some old paint a while ago. On the box it said "Must not be used as a hair dryer." This thing is designed to melt gloss paint off of wood! Anyone stupid enough to try drying their hair with it deserves everything they get. Chris

[Bubba136]

This time of year always brings out a rash of new warning placed by manufacturers on items they sell. Among my favorites is the one placed on a cotton shirt that advises the wearer not to iron while wearing. Another that really places these absurdities is the one printed on a giant, brightly painted, ceramic chicken my wife bought to put in our kitchen that said "Do not eat. Not for human consumption as food." Now, if you were dumb enough to think of this as food, what are the chances that you know how to read?

[Dr. Shoe]

I notice that the High Court has ruled that the continued detention of 9 "Terrorism suspects" without a trial is illegal and contravene human rights. So this government that forces everyone else to accept "human rights" rulings and enforces them most vigorously are going to continue to hold them after all. Talk about 2 sets of laws!

[Firefox]

The classic (seen on a packet of peanuts in Sainsburies): Warning...May contain nuts

[Skirted-UK]

Some years ago most schools would not allow their female teachers and students to wear trousers, now some schools are banning women from wearing skirts!? Now that most women are wearing trousers and flat shoes I expect to see skirts and high heels banned at work on health & safety grounds soon. I can also see insurance companies banning skirts and high heels, claiming that they are hazardous at work, think of the accidents that could happen to a woman in a tight skirt and high heels! I don't think that women have done themselves any favors insisting on wearing trousers and men's style shoes, they might find that they are stuck with them in the future, like we are stuck with suits and ties.

[JeffM]

Not exactly political correctness but bureaucracy job justification. From Readers Digest My husband died 6 months ago. He recently received a letter saying he was required for jury duty. I replied telling them he had died 6 months ago. They replied saying that after due consideration they had removed him from the jury list and that he should not receive any more mail from them unless he changed his name or his address. Apparently there is life after death. Jeff

[genebujold]

This thread contains examples of political correctness gone mad that are absolute jewels!

In addition to my other endeavors, I occasionally teach a course in Logic (aka Logical Thought) at one of the local college campuses. These posts are perfect material!

Out of respect for the nature of this board, however, I won't use them, but will craft a few "examples" that are similar, without revealing any details, even the country of origen.

Bottom line: Lawyers are, for the most part, sadly lacking when it comes to logical discourse. When one views the written record of the Scott Peterson case, for example, it's clear to see that lawyers, the media, and the vast majority of people out there simply cannot *logically* follow the vast amount of information out there to it's *logical* conclusion.

Yet another case of political correctness gone mad.

Sad, really.

For a decidely DIFFERENT mindset than the one being rammed down the the public's throat by the Modesto Police Department and the media (the most inept bunch of dunderheads there ever was), click on the following links:

Overview: http://www.justice4scott.com/

Details: http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timeline%20Period%203.htm

For more: http://www.geragos.com/peterson.php

I've only once been asked to appear in court to logically dissect a case to its essential elements of fact, possibility, and falsehood, but after reading through the full (and I do mean FULL) account of everything that was presented in court, I'm absolutely floored that the jury found him guilty.

The facts as presented to the jury meet no test of the law whatsoever with respect to motive (billions of men have affairs), location (it was the nearest large-body lake within several hundred miles and bodies are commonly dumped in the nearest large-body lakes), or circumstancial evidence.

One of two things could be happening, here. Either Scott Peterson is a mastermind genious at planning his wife's demise, yet botched it neverless (fails the sanity test, much less far more rigorous tests on human psyche taught by the FBI to various police departments) or he's innocent, a simple, yet very well accompanied victem of circumstances in which, if he were so inclined, he could have committed the murder.

The problem is, there are many reasons why someone such as Scott Peterson would never do such a thing, the least of which was the fact that he was a bright, intelligent human being with the ability to plan for the future, as clearly evidenced by his growing business and current level of income.

People like that DON'T murder. At the worst, they divorce, cut their losses, and proceed on with life. But they DON'T resort to an action that threatens their future endeavors, regardless of what they might be.

So what's the problem, here?

Simple - It's a case where the minds of the jury, the media, and the prosecution have been re-programmed by Hollywood and others into thinking otherwise.

Put simply, Scott Peterson was never delivered due process of law. Instead, he and the very tenuous circumstances surrounding his wife's murder were paraded around the local area, the courts, and the media by a group of individuals who were, at best, out to make a name for themselves.

SO - how do we fix this problem?

First - Free Scott Peterson until some REAL evidence is found.

Second - TRAIN prosecutors everywhere with respect to the following:

Professional, legal, and moral ETHICS - severe violations in this area occurred during his trial.

Human psychology 101 - severe violations in this area also occurred during his trial.

THE LAW. It seems absolutely ridiculous that I should be calling for the training of those who should have received it in the first place.

Unbelievable.

God, I hope and pray the MPD finally gets it right, not only from the point of the perp, but primarily with respect to troubling any open mine...

[Bubba136]

GB commented:

Lawyers are, for the most part, sadly lacking when it comes to logical discourse.

Now, as much as I agree with this comment, I've a daughter that is a lawyer and she has as much said that common logic as applied by laymen doesn't have any place in practicing the law except when you trying to convince a jury of a defendant's guilt or innocence. Non-lawyers see things one way and lawyers see things from a completely different perspective. They're trained to take advantage of that.

The case against Scott Peterson, as GB has pointed out, was purely circumstantial. That being the case, the truth shall never be completely known unless some irrefutable proof is uncovered because truth as delivered by the lawyers is shaded (spun) by the prosecutor's or defender's purpose. Jurys are hard pressed to make a decision in instances where there is only speculation and isn't any "hard" proof.

GB further said

Put simply, Scott Peterson was never delivered due process of law. Instead, he and the very tenuous circumstances surrounding his wife's murder were paraded around the local area, the courts, and the media by a group of individuals who were, at best, out to make a name for themselves.

This really became obvious after the trial when several members of the jury emoted that they had voted to convict Peterson because he didn't show any emotion or "remorse" throughout the trial. Therefore, he must be guilty.

I refused to listen to or watch any of the reporting about the Peterson case because, after O.J. Simpson's trial, I knew it was all theatrics and the media only wanted to recreate the circus atmosphere as it existed during his trial. I also know that only relief by an "appeals" court will determine if Peterson was afforded true justice. But there is the assumption that any judge sitting on the bench of the appeals court could recognize a miscarrage of justice if they saw one. Truely a sad state.

[genebujold]

Now, as much as I agree with this comment, I've a daughter that is a lawyer and she has as much said that common logic as applied by laymen doesn't have any place in practicing the law except when you trying to convince a jury of a defendant's guilt or innocence. Non-lawyers see things one way and lawyers see things from a completely different perspective. They're trained to take advantage of that.

Hey, Bubba! Long time no post!

Good to hear your daughter is a lawyer - we need more good people in that profession. I've a cousin who's a lawyer, too. Fine gal.

I think part of the problem is that the media highlights only a few cases, rendering the ones where the prosecution does it's job, fair and square, to the "that's not news" pile.

For example, I received a ticket for making a left turn on a left green arrow. For some reason, the cop sitting at the light thought it was red. Then again, he was on the other side of the intersection, not my side.

Here in Vegas, fighting this nonsense is is a four step process:

1. Visit the courthouse to either pay the ticket or inform them you're fighting it.

2. Visit the courthouse a second time, about three weeks later, at a date of their choosing, to inform them again that you're fighting it, and to schedule the next date, which is to...

3. Visit the courthouse a third time, about three weeks later, at a date of their choosing, to meet with the District Attorney (or one of perhaps dozens of his flunkies, aka DA wannabees) to either discuss the details or to plea-bargain.

4. Visit the courthouse a fourth time, about three weeks later, at a date of their choosing, to attend traffic court!

Four times.

I remember a much earlier ticket I received when I lived in North Carolina. There was only one court date, and that's the date where I showed up, presented my case and evidence before the judge, who promply dismissed the charges.

Here in Las Vegas, it took me three visits, but the result was the same - the DA assistant said, "thanks for playing the game - I can see by your pile of evidence you're not at fault, so how about we plea-bargain it down to a simple parking ticket, no points, just a $35 fine?"

Time is money, so I said "Deal!" and got the HELL out of THERE.

I think I'd make a great lawyer. I've been up against lawyers several times (usually business issues) and although I've either consulted my lawyer or had him present, he usually said "run with it" after I briefed my plan, and I did.

Haven't lost yet!

Then again, they were fairly frivilous issues, a point which I hammered home up front to the point where all motions were withdrawn.

The thing that really irks me, though, is that a lawyer is, by definition, an "officer of the court." It's his sworn duty, not to fight blindly for the defendant or the prosecution, but rather to "uphold the law."

Yet how many times do we see lawyers violating the law instead of upholding it?

I recall a memo I received from a lawyer, again in North Carolina, that had to do with the paying of my homeowner's association dues, which, by the way, was the stated responsibility of my rental property manager.

Put simply, she didn't do her job, so instead of the homeowner's association contacting me, the lawyer contacted me.

I, in turn, contacted the homeowner's association and my rental property manager, and worked things out, settling the matter in less than three days.

The lawyer, meanwhile, filed all kinds of paperwork against my property, including leans, etc. - even after the business was settled.

In so doing, he charged the homeowner's association an exhorbitant sum, and when they said "what the hell are you doing? We settled this issue two months ago!" he came after me, saying I had to pay his legal fees, and slapped another lien on my place for the amount of his fees.

I not only took him to court, and won, including penalties, but working through the North Carolina Bar Association, I obtained a censure because he failed to uphold his duties as an officer of the court, failed to properly advise his client, and improperly spent time and effort, including filing motions against me, after knowing about a material fact (namely, that I'd already squared away the issue).

Put simply, he was a bully. He didn't care about doing the right thing, or upholding the law, according to the oath he swore. All he cared about was lining his damn pockets.

Apparently, that's all the prosecution team in the case of Scott Peterson cared about, either. They're sitting on top of the mountain, while three guilty men go free and one innocent man sits in jail.

Read on! Type "Scott Peterson is Innocent" into Google and you'll uncover a vast array of information, most of which was presented at the trial, and all of which was apparently ignored.

Even Time Magazine, in 2003, published a very revealing dialogue with Scott's parents: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,444968,00.html

Pay particular attention to the part about the "other pregnant woman who was thrown in the lake." Husbands killing their wives do that but once.

Satanists who abduct pregnant women and sacrifice them in rituals might do that twice, or more.

Regardless, the police have never accounted for the seven eyewitnesses who saw Laci after she was supposedly murdered, the three eyewitnesses who saw three men arguing with her that morning as she walked their dog in the park, the van which was parked for a short time in front of their house, or the dog, leash still attached, which a neighbor found staring down the street after the departing van.

Meanwhile, while his wife was still alive, Scott had no less than five witnesses who simultaneously saw him at various locations on the way to the lake, at the lake, and returning from it. Neighborhood witnesses confirmed how distraught, disturbed, and upset he was the afternoon/evening of the 24th - and for several weeks thereafter.

It wasn't until he was arrested that he developed that pissed-off look.

Then again, if you were wrongly accused of a crime you didn't commit, how would you feel?

And if you're really interested in developing goose pimples tonight, just type this into Google: "satanists" and "laci peterson"

And I love the following quote on the Modesto Police Department's website: "So far, the Modesto Police Department has dedicated over 70,000 staff hours from all levels and areas of the department."

Wow. 70,000 staff hours. And still not a single brain cell in use.

UN-believable!

Your tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm glad I don't live in California!

By the way - this guy appears to be on the right trail: http://www.geocities.com/justicewell/scott.htm

I only stumbled across these websites over the last couple of days, but BOY! Is it an eye-opener, or what?

What!

[xaphod]

In addition to my other endeavors, I occasionally teach a course in Logic (aka Logical Thought) at one of the local college campuses. These posts are perfect material!

Here's one to brighten up this thread .....

All cats have 3 tails

.... because one cat has one more tail than no cat AND

.... no cat has two tails.

Xa

[genebujold]

Here's one to brighten up this thread .....

All cats have 3 tails

.... because one cat has one more tail than no cat AND

.... no cat has two tails.

Xa

Good one!

Logically speaking, of course, "no cat" in the first is not symatically equal to "no cat" in the second, as the meaning of both are determined in large part by the context in which they're found. The first "no cat" means "the absence of a cat," and the second "no cat" means "out of the collection of all cats," which is symmantically the opposite meaning!

Same goes for "bat" and "bat," as in how a small, furry flying mammal isn't the same as a round wooden cylinder used to beat the snot out of a leather-wrapped ball in a stadium filled with sixty-five thousand screaming fans.

But I digress...

[Dr. Shoe]

.... much the same as batman could be a caped crusader or a military officer's butler.