Sources across the net believe that the spike of guests who are visiting I^2 are separate programs that operate under an Artificial Intelligence that identifies itself as "DAVE".Apparently, the prophets of Dave are flooding the threads -___-
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Parts on September 22, 2013, 08:34:11 PMChanging your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one. It's not easy, but it can still be done. I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job. The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony. It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case. Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena.
Changing your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one.
Jesus died on the cross to show us that BDSM is a legitimate form of love.
There is only one truth and it is that people do have penises of different sizes and one of them is the longest.
Quote from: Gotboredwithlions on September 22, 2013, 09:33:29 PMQuote from: Parts on September 22, 2013, 08:34:11 PMChanging your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one. It's not easy, but it can still be done. I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job. The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony. It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case. Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena. The point of cross-examination is to discredit the opponent's witnesses.
So let me get this straight. Burkas won't be allowed in some places because "they're creepy". Is that really whats being said in here?
Quote from: Semicolon on September 23, 2013, 05:19:02 AMQuote from: Gotboredwithlions on September 22, 2013, 09:33:29 PMQuote from: Parts on September 22, 2013, 08:34:11 PMChanging your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one. It's not easy, but it can still be done. I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job. The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony. It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case. Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena. The point of cross-examination is to discredit the opponent's witnesses.Same difference. They succeed or they fail. The point is different members of the judicial system have different jobs. Considering that members of the jury will not always even have good perception of body language, evaluating it would be the job of an expert witness called by legal council, with the permission of the judge.
Quote from: Gotboredwithlions on September 23, 2013, 03:23:03 PMQuote from: Semicolon on September 23, 2013, 05:19:02 AMQuote from: Gotboredwithlions on September 22, 2013, 09:33:29 PMQuote from: Parts on September 22, 2013, 08:34:11 PMChanging your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one. It's not easy, but it can still be done. I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job. The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony. It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case. Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena. The point of cross-examination is to discredit the opponent's witnesses.Same difference. They succeed or they fail. The point is different members of the judicial system have different jobs. Considering that members of the jury will not always even have good perception of body language, evaluating it would be the job of an expert witness called by legal council, with the permission of the judge. I think you're universally applying aspie standards to a mixed aspie/NT world. I would think that a case that's easy to decide would be settled out of court, to avoid the expense of litigation. The job of the jury is to evaluate the evidence to find the truth of a case. Any expert witness you call in to interpret body language would be doing the jury's job.
What about someone in a burka wearing dark sunglasses?
Quote from: RageBeoulve on September 23, 2013, 09:58:06 AMSo let me get this straight. Burkas won't be allowed in some places because "they're creepy". Is that really whats being said in here? Is this directed at me? If so, then no, just said I think they're creepy. Can't really think of any grounds to disallow them.
I can do upside down chocolate moo things!
You can't fuck about with your kids' genitals UNLESS IT'S FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS