Doc Posted January 8 Posted January 8 43 minutes ago, B-Man said: MORE: I'll believe it when it happens.
B-Man Posted January 21 Posted January 21 NOPE, NOT SICK OF ALL THE WINNING: Senate Passes Laken Riley Act With *12* Dem Votes in Big Trump Win. https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2025/01/21/senate-passes-laken-riley-act-with-12-dem-votes-in-big-trump-win-n4936196 1
The Frankish Reich Posted January 21 Posted January 21 I follow the general rule that all legislation named after a person is almost always bad.
Commsvet11 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 36 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I follow the general rule that all legislation named after a person is almost always bad. That’s a bold statement, I wouldn’t say that in public Edited January 21 by Commsvet11 Grammar
The Frankish Reich Posted January 21 Posted January 21 43 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said: That’s a bold statement, I wouldn’t say that in public Here's what google's AI had to say about legislation named after a person: While not always "bad," legislation named after a crime victim is often considered problematic because it can be driven by strong emotions rather than careful policy analysis, potentially leading to laws that are overly punitive or poorly crafted, with the emotional weight of the victim's story used to bypass critical scrutiny; essentially, using a victim's tragedy to push through legislation without fully considering its implications. Exactly.
JDHillFan Posted January 21 Posted January 21 4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Here's what google's AI had to say about legislation named after a person: While not always "bad," legislation named after a crime victim is often considered problematic because it can be driven by strong emotions rather than careful policy analysis, potentially leading to laws that are overly punitive or poorly crafted, with the emotional weight of the victim's story used to bypass critical scrutiny; essentially, using a victim's tragedy to push through legislation without fully considering its implications. Exactly. Do you or Google AI have some examples to share?
The Frankish Reich Posted January 21 Posted January 21 Just now, JDHillFan said: Do you or Google AI have some examples to share? https://reason.com/2025/01/18/the-laken-riley-act-reminds-us-if-a-law-is-named-after-someone-its-probably-bad/#:~:text=Usually pegged to a victim,don't get on board. I think Reason (a hard libertarian site) first noticed this.
JDHillFan Posted January 21 Posted January 21 4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: https://reason.com/2025/01/18/the-laken-riley-act-reminds-us-if-a-law-is-named-after-someone-its-probably-bad/#:~:text=Usually pegged to a victim,don't get on board. I think Reason (a hard libertarian site) first noticed this. I don’t argue the premise. Like you to this point, the Reason article includes no other examples. If the claim is that it is almost always bad I would think examples are readily at hand. Looks like I am wrong about that.
The Frankish Reich Posted January 21 Posted January 21 1 minute ago, JDHillFan said: I don’t argue the premise. Like you to this point, the Reason article includes no other examples. If the claim is that it is almost always bad I would think examples are readily at hand. Looks like I am wrong about that. Well, here's one that I think was a bad law, sold on an apparently false premise. And guess what? You'll probably agree about this one with respect to the first name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act
JDHillFan Posted January 21 Posted January 21 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Well, here's one that I think was a bad law, sold on an apparently false premise. And guess what? You'll probably agree about this one with respect to the first name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act Thank you. You have made your case. This one example is all I needed to understand that laws named after people are almost always bad.
Commsvet11 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 18 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Well, here's one that I think was a bad law, sold on an apparently false premise. And guess what? You'll probably agree about this one with respect to the first name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act I will counter with a good law. Megan’s Law.
BillsFanNC Posted January 21 Author Posted January 21 It's what useful idiots / commies always do: obfuscate and deflect. Instead of telling us why the substance of THIS law is bad, just muddy the waters by saying other laws are always bad solely because of how they're named. Finding is a master of this tactic and it's why he landed on my permanent ignore list long before he had a chance to get on it by ridiculously claiming, and standing by, his Biden is mentally fit claim. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted January 21 Posted January 21 8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: It's what useful idiots / commies always do: obfuscate and deflect. Instead of telling us why the substance of THIS law is bad, just muddy the waters by saying other laws are always bad solely because of how they're named. Finding is a master of this tactic and it's why he landed on my permanent ignore list long before he had a chance to get on it by ridiculously claiming, and standing by, his Biden is mentally fit claim. funny thing, that ignoring by paying attention and responding
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted January 21 Posted January 21 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: funny thing, that ignoring by paying attention and responding Other than name aside, how is this a bad bill?
BillsFanNC Posted January 21 Author Posted January 21 (edited) For an "attorney" Finding sure is dense. Funny thing that it's the 15th time I've had to explain that the ignore function doesn’t work on quoted content and it still pretends to not get it. Edited January 21 by BillsFanNC
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: I follow the general rule that all legislation named after a person is almost always bad. I don’t know. I would think that allowing the families of victims to author/write/vote on laws would be a mistake, but at some point you have to trust the rule of law. Written, debated, voted on….boom it’s done. Edited January 21 by leh-nerd skin-erd
Recommended Posts