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.
Thread beginning with comment 545841
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Jury qualifications?
by HappyGod on Wed 19th Dec 2012 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Jury qualifications?"
HappyGod
Member since:
2005-10-19

Wow, that is one cynical view you've got there!

It's pretty annoying that this kind of arrogance has crept into the left. The assumption that the public are all idiots has led us to such fantastic decisions as:

1. Speed cameras.
2. Many thousands of health warnings on everything.
3. Bans/limits on alcohol, tobacco.

The original left movement was one of faith and optimism in the general public, and the view that people were capable of deciding their own fate. Whence came socialism, communism etc.

This has now been replaced with an arrogant, cynical view that people are simple minded idiots who need hand-holding. This is clearly revealed by those annoying folks who are constantly trying to "raise awareness", which is a nice way of saying: "brow beat the plebs into caring about things I think they should care about".

It's a pretty short hop from the view that people are too stupid to be on a jury, to thinking that they are too stupid to vote.

Here's someone explaining personal freedoms a lot better than I can:

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2012/09/cpt_20120924.mp3

Edited 2012-12-19 08:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Jury qualifications?
by saso on Wed 19th Dec 2012 08:59 in reply to "RE[4]: Jury qualifications?"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

The assumption that the public are all idiots has led us to such fantastic decisions as:

It is no assumption that the average person is highly susceptible to a myriad of cognitive biases, especially in high-stakes cases. Attorneys in common law systems are educated how to exploit these biases, there are practices for favorable jury selection based on case, etc.

1. Speed cameras.
2. Many thousands of health warnings on everything.
3. Bans/limits on alcohol, tobacco.

You are espousing a trivial libertarian ideological standpoint, that given freedom, people would know what's best for them - essentially a form of radical libertarianism. That is factually just plain not true. Besides example 2 (which I'm not sure about), both 1 (traffic regulations in general) and 3 (regulation of hazardous substances) have, as a matter of fact, reduced deaths among the general populace from these risks.

This has now been replaced with an arrogant, cynical view that people are simple minded idiots who need hand-holding.

Again, an extreme libertarian viewpoint. What you fail to appreciate is that humans are a social species and thus we form superorganisms called "societies". These are more than the simple sum of the capabilities of their members, and thus work naturally to protect themselves from harmful influences. This needs to be balanced with individual concerns, or the society devolves into a tyranny.

It's a pretty short hop from the view that people are too stupid to be on a jury, to thinking that they are too stupid to vote.

Perhaps saying that some people are too stupid to vote isn't that crazy after all. Look at the 2008 presidential election in the US - how on Earth was it possible that somebody as vapid as Sarah Palin stood a real chance of being elected to the second highest office in America? Or 2012 and Romney's comments that he believes in an apocalyptic return of Jesus to the Mount of Olives. A doomsday loonie stood a very real chance of being elected president in a country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth. When you have somebody like that in office (elected by popular vote, mind you!), is this: [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CdKuLRmg8k ] really such a remote scenario?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Jury qualifications?
by M.Onty on Wed 19th Dec 2012 13:19 in reply to "RE[5]: Jury qualifications?"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23


Perhaps saying that some people are too stupid to vote isn't that crazy after all. Look at the 2008 presidential election in the US - how on Earth was it possible that somebody as vapid as Sarah Palin stood a real chance of being elected to the second highest office in America? Or 2012 and Romney's comments that he believes in an apocalyptic return of Jesus to the Mount of Olives. A doomsday loonie stood a very real chance of being elected president in a country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth. When you have somebody like that in office (elected by popular vote, mind you!), is this: [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CdKuLRmg8k ] really such a remote scenario?


Who gets to decide who's too stupid to vote? Who gets to decide whether the elite who make that decision have the right kind of intelligence to make that system? Institutions and rules are important, and I don't think the post you're responding to is anywhere near as libertarian as you suggested, but fundamentally even the strictest system must comes down to trusting your fellows. Healthier for society to take a risk on a significant minority of its own being plonkers and base itself on trust than to try to exclude them and base itself on distrust.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Jury qualifications?
by HappyGod on Wed 19th Dec 2012 13:50 in reply to "RE[5]: Jury qualifications?"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

The main problem with your argument is that you think that because people can sometimes behave this way, that they always behave this way. Worse than that, you are prepared to deal with people in a guilty-until-proven-innocent manner. Scary.

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. You then went on and vindicated my second point by agreeing with it (viz. Voting).

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.

I don't doubt your motives, but I would be very careful if I were you. Most dictatorships begin this way, and even to the end maintain a viewpoint that "the people just need guidance". It's a slippery slope.

Reply Parent Score: 2