(Invite Only) -- What happened to Debate in the USA?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So I have a couple of things I can think of that I "want" that I suspect others would not want granted.

1. When a person causes harm to another, irrespective of the nature of the harm (physical, financial, emotional, psychological, etc.) as long as it results in some type of loss caused by their act (money, job, business, relationships, reputation, etc.) I want a clear path of redress that is not dependent upon jurisdiction or the whim of a judge, court clerk, attorney, etc. This is what statutory damages achieves because the money damages are written into the laws.

For example, if a person or company does X, Y and/or Z then that is a violation of say the Consumer Protection Act and in the act itself, it can provide for statutory damages of say $500 per offense up to a maximum of $2,500. If this can be done for consumer issues what is preventing it from being done when it comes to acts against another individual because of animus due to them being a member of a protected class (their race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, color, religion, etc.)

The first thing that comes up when this is mentioned is how are you going to prove that they did it based on animus or more frequently we hear "you can't prove that they did it based on animus". This is a valid question however the courts have already answered it because they understand that people who commit these types of offenses generally do not provide their target with a smoking gun, therefore they allow the animus to be inferred.

If you're alleging that the defendant's behavior is motivated by bias and animus, conversations such as the ones we see daily on U.S. Message Board are proof of both, particularly when they go back several years and they keep making the same racially insensitive and derogatory comments about a specific group. This includes sexual harassment as well.

When I first tried to introduce the topic, it immediately went from racist slurs and insults to vulgar sexual comments.

Statutory damages is the only way I know of to make the penalties for harassing people in this way more uniform across the board. Without them, it still can be done, but because it's much more of a crap shoot, it makes the process more of a scorch the earth with a flame thrower kind of thing and that's not necessarily good.

 

[Mac1958]

How do we convince people to check their principles and weigh in on THOSE -- rather than their party affiliations?

Well, I've thought a lot about this, I think the root of this problem, as it is with most, is cultural, and so far I've only settled on a couple of thoughts:

First, nothing of substance can be accomplished unless and until each tribe holds its own accountable for its actions and intellectual dishonesty. I do see some of that on both ends, so there actually is some hope there. There's the Lincoln Project on the Right, and individual progressive pundits like Krystal Ball, Sam Harris and Matt Taibbi on the Left. Just show us some honest, constructive critical thinking and self-reflection, instead of your latest round of childish poo-flinging.

Second, given that we are such a celebrity-driven society, I strongly suspect it's going to take some high-level names on each end to say "enough is enough". Sports? Popular culture? There will have to be several, so that a momentum can be created. And most likely, it will require an important (even catastrophic) event to get the ball rolling. Right now, I don't think we're anywhere near this. And worse, each tribe is waiting for the other to be the adult in the room and make the first move.

My biggest concern is about a question I saw a couple of years ago: Has it been so long since we knew how to communicate properly and effectively that we have literally lost the skill? If that's the case, we're in serious trouble. Obviously the jury is still out. If we really have lost that skill, if reason and civility are like muscles - use 'em or lose 'em - this just continues to decay.

Two things and I really wish that I wasn't beginning our exchange with a disagreement but perhaps I just need more information.

I disagree with the sentiment of tribes and holding their own accountable. Perhaps you can elaborate by what you mean by "tribes" because in my opinion, a signifcant part of the problems we face in society is people trying to regulate and control the behavior of others. It's bad enough that we have elected officials who don't actually represent us, our viewpoints or have concerns for the things that impact us yet pass laws that can diminish our freedoms and we basically get no say so in the matter. I personally have better representation through my professional affiliations that I do from my legislators, although I have communicated with a couple of them in support of specific bills they were attempting to get passed into law in spite of me not being one of their constituents.

Look at what has happened across the country: We have politicized everything, even down to sports and restaurants. And the breakout is the same: The American Left vs. the American Right. Those are the tribes. Humans remain a tribal species.

For a growing percentage of our society, you can make a fairly accurate guess how one person thinks of issue B by knowing what they think of issue A. For example, if a political partisan is pro choice, there's a better than even chance that they pro-gay rights. That's the nature and manifestation of tribalism. My question there is how many people defend a position based more on their tribal instincts and affiliation than on their true beliefs.

To your point about authoritarianism ("trying to regulate and control the behavior of others"), I agree completely. While we are in the process of dividing ourselves more and more into those two very well-defined tribes, there are also many similarities in the behaviors of both tribes. I point this out all the time. Authoritarianism is certainly one of those behavioral similarities.

What I see, every single day, is the "Political Horseshoe" theory in action, in which the two authoritarian ends of the spectrum become more like each other than like the rest of us:

 

[flacaltenn]

I disagree with the sentiment of tribes and holding their own accountable. Perhaps you can elaborate by what you mean by "tribes" because in my opinion, a signifcant part of the problems we face in society is people trying to regulate and control the behavior of others.

I get that totally.. When I use tribes or tribal organization of our society it's NOT in a derogatory manner at all.. It's a sociological observation on HOW we've become divided and HOW the divisions are deepening BECAUSE we can't civilly talk..

I also buy the argument that we are getting angered over stuff that doesn't ACTUALLY concern us.. Think I said earlier that now even states you DONT LIVE IN -- are part of war zone.. The news feeds up instigating stories on "how the other half governs", that MOST people just ADD to their list of why the other side is crazy, insane, dangerous, etc..

If Portland, Seattle WANTS to super quirky, a bit anarchist, and dangerous to live in -- by golly gee, let it be.. I'll sleep. Only concerns me when it becomes so violent that it affects the country by guilt and shame.... I'll be DAMNED if I would "bail them out", refinance their damages, or do a "disaster relief bill" tho...

 

[flacaltenn]

It's bad enough that we have elected officials who don't actually represent us, our viewpoints or have concerns for the things that impact us yet pass laws that can diminish our freedoms and we basically get no say so in the matter. I personally have better representation through my professional affiliations that I do from my legislators, although I have communicated with a couple of them in support of specific bills they were attempting to get passed into law in spite of me not being one of their constituents.

Maybe you've got a bit of libertarian in you !! LOL.. Like I said above, this divide is also because MOST people let govt be a bigger part of their lives than it deserves to be.. And in fact, IF you were libertarian, you'd KNOW that they take on way too much, and perform way too little... Dont FOCUS on their PRIMARY duties like law/justice, impeccably CLEAN and reliable elections, education, etc...

 

[flacaltenn]

So I have a couple of things I can think of that I "want" that I suspect others would not want granted.

1. When a person causes harm to another, irrespective of the nature of the harm (physical, financial, emotional, psychological, etc.) as long as it results in some type of loss caused by their act (money, job, business, relationships, reputation, etc.) I want a clear path of redress that is not dependent upon jurisdiction or the whim of a judge, court clerk, attorney, etc. This is what statutory damages achieves because the money damages are written into the laws.

For example, if a person or company does X, Y and/or Z then that is a violation of say the Consumer Protection Act and in the act itself, it can provide for statutory damages of say $500 per offense up to a maximum of $2,500. If this can be done for consumer issues what is preventing it from being done when it comes to acts against another individual because of animus due to them being a member of a protected class (their race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, color, religion, etc.)

The first thing that comes up when this is mentioned is how are you going to prove that they did it based on animus or more frequently we hear "you can't prove that they did it based on animus". This is a valid question however the courts have already answered it because they understand that people who commit these types of offenses generally do not provide their target with a smoking gun, therefore they allow the animus to be inferred.

If you're alleging that the defendant's behavior is motivated by bias and animus, conversations such as the ones we see daily on U.S. Message Board are proof of both, particularly when they go back several years and they keep making the same racially insensitive and derogatory comments about a specific group. This includes sexual harassment as well.

When I first tried to introduce the topic, it immediately went from racist slurs and insults to vulgar sexual comments.

Statutory damages is the only way I know of to make the penalties for harassing people in this way more uniform across the board. Without them, it still can be done, but because it's much more of a crap shoot, it makes the process more of a scorch the earth with a flame thrower kind of thing and that's not necessarily good.

If CERTAIN consumer complaints can be handled that way with statutory awards -- I have no problem with that if the specified awards are fairly small.. Besides short circuiting a bunch of legal hijinks, it CUTS off these MONUMENTAL attempts to get $250,000 for emotional distress if someone finds a piece of mousetail in their sandwich...

But I'm not a fan of deep anal probing everyone's past looking for transgressions.. It's messy and time consuming. Still requires subpoenas, expert testimony, context, etc.. Did NOT work well during the Cavanaugh confirmation when you had to sort out the PHONY from the facts back in his High School days.. And justice was NEVER served on the Gov, Lieutenant Gov, and Speaker of House in virginia when THEIR past coughed up some racist and sexual abuse issues...

Look at how difficult that REALLY is to do...

 

[flacaltenn]

For a growing percentage of our society, you can make a fairly accurate guess how one person thinks of issue B by knowing what they think of issue A. For example, if a political partisan is pro choice, there's a better than even chance that they pro-gay rights. That's the nature and manifestation of tribalism. My question there is how many people defend a position based more on their tribal instincts and affiliation than on their true beliefs.

I refuse to allow myself to be characterized that way, because I can't.. I'm just not a stereotype.. People DO that all the time to me, but my feedback is, if i'm sorted semi-equally into BOTH those boxes, I'm doing it right. I USED to be a leftist.. Then I became a liberal. And now, I'm a more zealous Liberal as a "small L" libertarian...

We'll never know about people's REAL beliefs from the USUAL message board posturing. My hope is -- that this "Breakfast Club" therapy provides the massive context you need to pigeon hole a person.. My pigeon hole isn't on a one dimensional political scale because my beliefs don't lie on a line defined by people's concepts of "party".. FREEDOM and LIBERTY have MORE dimensions than one.

There's a thing called the Nolan Chart that lays out beliefs in TWO dimensions.. One being social liberties and the 2nd axis is economic liberties.. On that CHART -- Nazis and Commies never meet.. But you CAN separate FASCIST dictators from Commie dictators and you can see where ANARCHISTS live for instance... You can even separate Reagan from Eisenhower, Kennedy from Obama by looking at their SOCIAL actions and ECONOMIC actions.

In reality, there's at LEAST a 3rd axis which is your take on foreign affairs and our ROLE in that.. And a good 4th axis would be your views on our current Constitution and law... Make your head spin a bit???

 

[flacaltenn]

People in what everybody calls the "Center" are NOT milquetoast roadkill... MOST have strong opinions on a LOT of stuff.. Also people in the center probably STILL believe in TOLERANCE and freedom..

Tolerance is GONE with this division.. THe idea of folks being "different politically" equating to "enemy" just kills that notion.. The whole concept of freedom is predicated on tolerance. And tolerance does not mean that can't hate something that you'll "allow" others to do..

In fact, free speech is based on tolerance. I HATE some of the stuff I hear and see, but I realize the alternative of letting govt or the courts (or this message board) decide what I hear and see is much worse.. So it's "tolerated"...

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If CERTAIN consumer complaints can be handled that way with statutory awards -- I have no problem with that if the specified awards are fairly small.. Besides short circuiting a bunch of legal hijinks, it CUTS off these MONUMENTAL attempts to get $250,000 for emotional distress if someone finds a piece of mousetail in their sandwich...

But I'm not a fan of deep anal probing everyone's past looking for transgressions.. It's messy and time consuming. Still requires subpoenas, expert testimony, context, etc.. Did NOT work well during the Cavanaugh confirmation when you had to sort out the PHONY from the facts back in his High School days.. And justice was NEVER served on the Gov, Lieutenant Gov, and Speaker of House in virginia when THEIR past coughed up some racist and sexual abuse issues...

Look at how difficult that REALLY is to do...

It's not as difficult as you might think. And besides the only thing that makes it difficult generally are people who will lie and distort the truth in an attempt to save their hides.

Give you an example. In digital forensics, we always make a copy of the medium we want to examine, we secure the original and then only work from the copy. I recently made a stupid mistake when taking possesion of some devices in that I took an old SD card, copied the files from it to another device and then used the card without first wiping it.

In this instance, my mistake had no impact at all on the case because I was using it in one of my cameras to take pictures of the devices for the case file, even though I included it when I sent the devices off to the lab. Now if I had done that (failed to wipe the drive) with the medium which received the copy of the original devices and opposing counsel became aware of this mistake they could attempt to use that mistake to try to invalidate the entire examination, claiming that any illicit data found was not from their client's device but was instead left over on the drive I copied the image to because I neglected to wipe it. Luckily the mistake was moot.

My two favorite types of evidence are 1) electronic evidence (emails, online postings, photos, video, audio, online profiles, etc.) and 2) admissions/confessions that support the existing electronic evidence. I also really like police communications, reports, court filings, etc.

Having to investigate a case properly can be a long and sometimes painful process but when your investigation produces the evidence you need to prove your case it's well worth it, especially when the evidence you uncover substaniates the claims of other individuals as well. I was once able to provide an investigator with evidence of my claim of harassment that not only I had made but over 50 other people as well. I just happened to collect and save the evidence that proved all of our allegations.

 

[flacaltenn]

Having to investigate a case properly can be a long and sometimes painful process but when your investigation produces the evidence you need to prove your case it's well worth it, especially when the evidence you uncover substaniates the claims of other individuals as well. I was once able to provide an investigator with evidence of my claim of harassment that not only I had made but over 50 other people as well. I just happened to collect and save the evidence that proved all of our allegations.

We agree it's harder than it looks. Expensive and time consuming.. So it kind of ruins the concept of prescribed renumerations thru consumer rights.. Because if those statutory payments are limited to small amounts -- I'm doubting the risk/time is anywhere near proportional to the rewards..

If you're willing to build those kind of cases, probably need to target the DEEP pockets and bigger rewards... Or get some biased "public servants" removed...

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Having to investigate a case properly can be a long and sometimes painful process but when your investigation produces the evidence you need to prove your case it's well worth it, especially when the evidence you uncover substaniates the claims of other individuals as well. I was once able to provide an investigator with evidence of my claim of harassment that not only I had made but over 50 other people as well. I just happened to collect and save the evidence that proved all of our allegations.

We agree it's harder than it looks. Expensive and time consuming.. So it kind of ruins the concept of prescribed renumerations thru consumer rights.. Because if those statutory payments are limited to small amounts -- I'm doubting the risk/time is anywhere near proportional to the rewards..

If you're willing to build those kind of cases, probably need to target the DEEP pockets and bigger rewards... Or get some biased "public servants" removed...

Well consumer protection was just an example because there are a bunch of circumstances in which the violations and damages are written into the code. For example

RCW 46.71.045
Unlawful acts or practices.
Each of the following acts or practices are unlawful:
(1) Advertising that is false, deceptive, or misleading. A single or isolated media mistake does not constitute a false, deceptive, or misleading statement or misrepresentation under this section;
(2) Materially understating or misstating the estimated price for a specified repair procedure;
(3) Retaining payment from a customer for parts not delivered or installed or a labor operation or repair procedure that has not actually been performed;
(4) Unauthorized operation of a customer's vehicle for purposes not related to repair or diagnosis;
(5) Failing or refusing to provide a customer, upon request, a copy, at no charge, of any document signed by the customer;
(6) Retaining duplicative payment from both the customer and the warranty or extended service contract provider for the same covered component, part, or labor;
(7) Charging a customer for unnecessary repairs. For purposes of this subsection "unnecessary repairs" means those for which there is no reasonable basis for performing the service. A reasonable basis includes, but is not limited to: (a) That the repair service is consistent with specifications established by law or the manufacturer of the motor vehicle, component, or part; (b) that the repair is in accordance with accepted industry standards; or (c) that the repair was performed at the specific request of the customer.
[ 1993 c 424 § 9.]
NOTES:
Severability—Effective date—1993 c 424: See notes following RCW 46.71.005.

Consumer Protection Act—Defense.
The legislature finds that the practices covered by this chapter are matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW. Violations of this chapter are not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business. A violation of this chapter is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition for the purpose of applying the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW. In an action under chapter 19.86 RCW due to an automotive repair facility's charging a customer an amount in excess of one hundred ten percent of the amount authorized by the customer, a violation shall not be found if the automotive repair facility proves by a preponderance of the evidence that its conduct was reasonable, necessary, and justified under the circumstances.
Notwithstanding RCW 46.64.050, no violation of this chapter shall give rise to criminal liability under that section.
[ 1993 c 424 § 12; 1982 c 62 § 9; 1977 ex.s. c 280 § 7.]
NOTES:
Severability—Effective date—1993 c 424: See notes following RCW 46.71.005.

RCW 19.86.020
Unfair competition, practices, declared unlawful.
Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
[ 1961 c 216 § 2.]

Civil action—Unfair or deceptive act or practice—Claim elements.
In a private action in which an unfair or deceptive act or practice is alleged under RCW 19.86.020, a claimant may establish that the act or practice is injurious to the public interest because it:
(1) Violates a statute that incorporates this chapter;
(2) Violates a statute that contains a specific legislative declaration of public interest impact; or
(3)(a) Injured other persons; (b) had the capacity to injure other persons; or (c) has the capacity to injure other persons.
[ 2009 c 371 § 2.]
NOTES:
Application—2009 c 371: See note following RCW 19.86.090.


RCW 19.86.090
Civil action for damages—Treble damages authorized—Action by governmental entities

 

[flacaltenn]

RCW 46.71.045
Unlawful acts or practices.
Each of the following acts or practices are unlawful:
(1) Advertising that is false, deceptive, or misleading. A single or isolated media mistake does not constitute a false, deceptive, or misleading statement or misrepresentation under this section;
(2) Materially understating or misstating the estimated price for a specified repair procedure;
(3) Retaining payment from a customer for parts not delivered or installed or a labor operation or repair procedure that has not actually been performed;
(4) Unauthorized operation of a customer's vehicle for purposes not related to repair or diagnosis;
(5) Failing or refusing to provide a customer, upon request, a copy, at no charge, of any document signed by the customer;
(6) Retaining duplicative payment from both the customer and the warranty or extended service contract provider for the same covered component, part, or labor;
(7) Charging a customer for unnecessary repairs. For purposes of this subsection "unnecessary repairs" means those for which there is no reasonable basis for performing the service. A reasonable basis includes, but is not limited to: (a) That the repair service is consistent with specifications established by law or the manufacturer of the motor vehicle, component, or part; (b) that the repair is in accordance with accepted industry standards; or (c) that the repair was performed at the specific request of the customer.
[ 1993 c 424 § 9.]

This section should be on the local news AHEAD of all the other "Public Service" stuff... But you hardly ever see it.. Same with some of the other sections you quoted... If the MEDIA was REALLY engaged in PSAnnouncements -- this would be more valuable than the vape or "tide pods" hysteria .,.....

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

RCW 46.71.045
Unlawful acts or practices.
Each of the following acts or practices are unlawful:
(1) Advertising that is false, deceptive, or misleading. A single or isolated media mistake does not constitute a false, deceptive, or misleading statement or misrepresentation under this section;
(2) Materially understating or misstating the estimated price for a specified repair procedure;
(3) Retaining payment from a customer for parts not delivered or installed or a labor operation or repair procedure that has not actually been performed;
(4) Unauthorized operation of a customer's vehicle for purposes not related to repair or diagnosis;
(5) Failing or refusing to provide a customer, upon request, a copy, at no charge, of any document signed by the customer;
(6) Retaining duplicative payment from both the customer and the warranty or extended service contract provider for the same covered component, part, or labor;
(7) Charging a customer for unnecessary repairs. For purposes of this subsection "unnecessary repairs" means those for which there is no reasonable basis for performing the service. A reasonable basis includes, but is not limited to: (a) That the repair service is consistent with specifications established by law or the manufacturer of the motor vehicle, component, or part; (b) that the repair is in accordance with accepted industry standards; or (c) that the repair was performed at the specific request of the customer.
[ 1993 c 424 § 9.]

This section should be on the local news AHEAD of all the other "Public Service" stuff... But you hardly ever see it.. Same with some of the other sections you quoted... If the MEDIA was REALLY engaged in PSAnnouncements -- this would be more valuable than the vape or "tide pods" hysteria .,.....

Well when you're intentionally hamstrung by the laws and system you have to get creative.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just a note.. I spaced out sometime on Tuesday and this thread got moved to the Recycle bin by me.. Was NOT a comment or reaction to the contributions of this thread. Very pleased to have had this discussion...

There's a weak spot in the Mod tools where mods "mark threads for moderation" and those threads selected are STILL marked for as long as you are logged in.. Mustof ran out of popcorn and then came back to move another thread to trash and this one was in the queue..

Doesn't happen often, but it can..