Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:31 UTC
Legal Lots of news about Apple vs. Samsung (and vice versa) in both the US and Europe today. In the US, judge Koh dealth two blows: one to Samsung (no retrial based on juror misconduct), the other to Apple (no permanent sales ban). In Europe, in the meantime, Samsung announced it will cease all lawsuits injunction requests against Apple... But only in Europe.
Permalink for comment 545874
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Jury qualifications?
by saso on Wed 19th Dec 2012 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Jury qualifications?"
Member since:

The main problem with your argument is that you think that because people can sometimes behave this way, that they always behave this way.

Do you dispute that the human psyche is rife with cognitive biases and faults of various sorts?

Worse than that, you are prepared to deal with people in a guilty-until-proven-innocent manner.

I never said that. I said that, on average, most people are easily manipulated - it's the only reason why things such as cold reading, channelling and yes, even religion, work. That being said, I have never advocated for changing the voting system. I was speaking hypothetically (that's why I started with "Perhaps") in an attempt to point out a problem and that it needs solving.

You also use words which demonstrate (in my view) a lack of tolerance for views that differ from your own. You twice dismissed my point of view as "trivial", and "extreme", which was clearly an overreaction.

I can dismiss arguments once I provide reasons for doing so. My reason is that your points 1 and 3 have been shown to be factually false. Traffic regulation and control of hazardous substances has, in all instances, resulted in a safer environment and fewer casualties. Please note the difference between "control/regulation" and "banning".

Perhaps it is this inability to take a more balanced view that may be responsible for your dislike of democratic institutions like juries, and voting. These things inherintly require a level of trust and acceptance that I fear you lack.

So for not taking the extreme view that these things can only be best decided by democratic vote I am considered not balanced? Uh huh...

My dislike of juries stems from my knowledge and experience of how easily people are manipulated. I would be all for juries with a certain number of modifications to the judicial process.

As for voting, it's more complicated than that. On paper, democracy is great, but it expects the electorate to have a certain educational level. I support a general right to vote simply because all alternatives are worse. In theory an enlightened monarch would probably be best, but then, those are pretty hard to come by (read: impossible, I don't want a monarchy).

Most dictatorships begin this way, and even to the end maintain a viewpoint that "the people just need guidance".

Can you support this claim? Because I don't think it's true. From what I can recall, most dictatorships have been established in sudden popular uprisings or military coups with the notable exception being Nazi Germany. The PRC, USSR, Iran (under the Shah), Iraq, etc. were all established as dictatorships without ever consulting the people.

Reply Parent Score: 2