Cethin

Weird, I just watched this year’s after not watching the film for years…

Its crazy how unlikely things happen frequently with enough participants.

Yes I was scrolling while sitting on the toilet, I’m sorry.

If a lawyer is a witness to a crime that their client committed, and is involved in proceedings related to that crime, they have to recuse themselves from representing the client. They literally cannot be that person’s lawyer anymore. They keep all information already held under attorney client privilege, but any future information is no longer protected.

Privledged information is protected, yes. Not other information.

They also have the bar - a legal association…

An association of legal professionals, not a legal association. It is private.

…specifically dedicated to ensuring that lawyers all comply with the law. If they break the law in the course of their duties, the association exists to prevent them from ever practicing law again.

Sure, I’d advocate for something like that, though the clergy does have administration that regulates them also. You can argue they should be more strict, but it does exist.

Slippery slopes are fallacies for a reason.

Slippery slope is a type of fallacy. It isn’t fallacious always.

'in its barest bones, a slippery-slope argument is of the following form:

“If A, which some people want, is done or allowed, then B, which most people don’t want, will inevitably follow. Therefore, let’s not do or allow A.”

The fallacy occurs when that form is not fleshed out by sufficient reasons to believe that B will inevitably follow from A’

(https://intellectualtakeout.org/2016/03/not-every-slippery-slope-argument-is-a-fallacy/)

Saying that this would create a precident to include other crimes being required to be reported is not fallacious.

If you subpeona a priest who saw someone commit a crime, all he has to say is “I cannot testify, it is against my religion.”

That’s just blatantly incorrect. They’re not required to report on stuff they’re told in confessionals and that’s all. They’re still required to report on crimes they witness, just like everyone else. Do you think lawyers are t required to report crimes they witness?

Do you understand the issue? The priest can’t ever say “I can’t testify because I heard it in confession” because that in and of itself is a breach of the seal of confession.

So he can only say “I cannot testify” and we all have to leave it at that.

Yes, just as a lawyer would have to do when questioned about a client. Anything they did outside of attorney-client privledge they must speak about, it’d be the same for the clergy. It’s not an issue for lawyers, so I don’t see an issue for the clergy.

In an ideal world they could hear the confessional and check up on the victim. I’m sure this won’t always happen, but it may. If they’re required to report it, they’ll never be told, so can’t act on it.

I don’t like religion, and especially organized religion. However, this steps too far into a government that forcing it’s way into people’s lives that I don’t like.

The desire for clergy not to be mandated reporters goes in the opposite direction from what you suggest. The slippery slope here doesn’t lead to breaking freedom of religion, it leads to a religious organization hiding crimes whenever they want.

It is not the opposite direction. It’s the same direction in a different system. Their religious system fails if confession isn’t only between you and the clergy.

I don’t think we want to be in a position where someone confesses that they aided with an illegal abortion, like they’re required to by their religion, and is arrested for it. Not all laws are good or just. If mandatory reporting for one crime is made, there’s no reason it shouldn’t expand to more/all crimes.

Leaving an exception in for the confessional when it comes to mandatory reporting would allow any religious group that had a mandate for secrecy to say, ‘We don’t have to report anything.’”

No, they only don’t have to report confessions. They’d still be legally required to report if they discover crimes happening, like other clergy committing crimes. It’d only be things said in the confession box that are safe.

I don’t like religion, and I really dislike organized religion, but I also hate giving the state power over people’s lives. We bend over backwards to get revenge in our society, to a massive detriment to ourselves. We give up so much just so we can get back at someone else. We need to stop this. Freedom is important. Yes, security is nice too, but how much security does this buy for the amount of freedom it could lose?

Along with all this, he has undermined trust in systems that were largely held together by trust. How many times were we taught about the “checks and balances” built into the system, only to see they’re ultimately a facade. The court rules against an action the president takes, but they can’t actually enforce it. The president overules congress’s power to write the budget, but they can’t actually stop him.

All checks and balances required a faith in the system working along a myth that was created. Not that myth has been shown to be false and there’s no going back. It’ll take serious amendments to the constitution to repair, or a new one altogether. I don’t think either of those are happening in the current political climate though.

So yes, he’s done a lot of harm externally, but also internally.

Wow, I didn’t even write much and you lost the thread that quickly. I was agreeing with the premise.

I know you said rhetoric, not actual 2A, but I will continue to say this every time I see it, this is not what 2A is for. It’s clearly for militias defending the state against an enemy army. It’s been mutilated into self defence stuff, but there’s nothing even approaching that there.

However, 9A does protect this right, since it has long been held by the people. Regardless, the reasoning doesn’t matter. People should be armed and train in operation and safe handling/storage/maintenance of their weapon, just in case it’s needed.

Yes. Will the court decide in your favor? Who knows, but I’d wager probably not. It’s better to try it and find out then let this happen though, or probably a better idea would be to get out ASAP and try to become a ghost if possible. Eventually this won’t be tolerated, but people need to see others stand up before they will usually.

Even better, have your police force enforce the damn law. Arrest these men when they try to kidnap people without a warrant.

Honestly, I don’t think so. FEMA has some powers that would be useful to a fascist if they butcher the wording and intent. I would suspect that’s the goal, not removing it.

Yeah, he’s trying to project power in attempt to make people comply before they’re forced to. Hopefully it fails. If it were me, I’d be more likely to fight back after he says something like this.

He’s old and has become rich from all this. You think he doesn’t have an exit (planned or not)? He either dies soon and he won’t have lost much or he lives a while linger as a rich man (assuming he doesn’t end up in prison, which I doubt at this point).

Maybe just create a law that establishes a fair algorithm that can’t be gamed, then we can stop all of this once of for all. Wouldn’t that be nice…

Confession is for stuff you’ve done, not are going to do. Presumably they recognize it was wrong or they wouldn’t go to confession about it.

I agree it sucks, but I also agree with the comment above yours. Yes, this crime is bad and the people deserve to be caught. I don’t trust the state to always do the right thing though. If we agree with this, we should also agree when they do the same for petty theft, assisting with an illegal abortion, or whatever other crimes they want. This is a slippery slope (not the fallacy) to the state removing protections of any confession, and these people believe if they don’t confess they’ll go to hell, regardless of if they’ll never do it again or if it wasn’t that significant.

To be fair, lawyers get to avoid this (I assume). This isn’t the same obviously, but if you view it from their frame of reference it is even more important. They must confess if they want to be “saved from God”, and similarly you should be honest with your lawyer to be saved from the court.

I don’t know where I stand on this issue. I obviously want them to be caught, and the religion is bogus, and the organization causes tremendous harm. However, if someone believes it’s true then this is pretty significant overreach and directly interferes with religious practice. They start with the crime most people will agree with, and then it sets a precident to go after other crimes in the same fashion. I’m too skeptical of the state to trust it’ll always be a good thing.

Yeah, sure. The issue is this won’t decrease funding. If anything, it’ll increase it. They have a certain number of troops they want to maintain. If they don’t have them, they’ll spend more on advertising. I wouldn’t be that upset if some of the funding went to increased pay, but that’s likely not going to happen, at least not significantly.

I saw some documentaries where they followed recruits and most of them failed because they lacked dedication, a decent understanding of French, or were physically or mentally unfit.

Well, you’re describing a large part of the US military. Many enlisted soldiers just joined to escape a bad situation, so they aren’t that dedicated. They certainly don’t know French, if they even know English that well.

Also, I think he has no concept of what rich is anymore. There’s no way in hell he isn’t, at minimum, rich in assets when he dies. His house, assuming he dies and only owns one, will probably be worth more than most people make in a lifetime. Unless he takes out insane mortgages against it and donates them, he’ll still be rich. Even then, it’s still call living a life where you have access to a house like that rich, even if he effectively doesn’t own it anymore.

I agree mostly, but I would say the union at least would work to change things if they see cops being murdered because cops are legally getting away with murder. The union works for the cops. They try to protect them, and if that means they need stricter rules so they can’t cause danger for other cops, that’s what they’d do. It might take a while though.

The same might be done by politicians or judges/the legal system if they see this too. The fact of the matter is, what the cops are doing is already illegal. It just isn’t enforced. If these people see vigilantism against cops rise, I’d hope (though I wouldn’t bet on it) that they’d start making changes to the system so people don’t feel that’s necessary.

Also, yes, this would be the literal definition of terrorism. What the cops are doing is also terrorism. It’s only ever seen as bad when it’s entities other than the state doing it, because they control the media.

Again, I hope we don’t see this happening, but I also see that people feel they aren’t left with an alternative, so I expect it to become more common unless things begin to change.

Edit: I also want to add that all cops are complicit unless they’re speaking out for change and calling out the dirty cops, but then you don’t get to be a cop for long. One rotten apple spoils the bunch. Get rid of the rotten apples or you’re all going to be rotten.

It might be a “good” thing, but it is an incredibly stupid thing for a US president to cause, that is unless they’re trying to undermine the power of the US.