The definition of anarchy I gave is from Oxford Languages (google); it is a common definition.
"no rulers" not "no rules" suggests to me that you have a Utopian view of anarchy where people follow the "rules" in the absence of "rulers".
However, you then propose that the free market could be a...
Collective by definition is done by people acting as a group.
Anarchy by definition is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Collective anarchy is fundamentally self-contradictory as collectivism requires a societal pact between...
Eye witness testimony is just one form of (non-scientific) evidence used in cases and science need not be excluded. I gave problems with an only science approach to trial and debate.
If one places "too much" emphasis on science then by definition one has made a mistake and should've placed...
Definition of... what? Perhaps you should clarify the thing being defined and give your own definition of that thing.
Also, while you now say your claim was from a "pure logic perspective", it was actually from the perspective of what you (or other "scientists" you've known) have or have not...
It is estimated that approximately 5% of people incarcerated in US prisons are actually innocent.
If only they had those scientific results during trial. The problem here is that either science hadn't advanced enough yet or evidence wasn't gathered for the trial. The problem is not that...
Judging the arguments is something observers of the debate do. If someone "reliable" claims to have seen a shapeshifting cat, observers of the testimony will draw their own conclusions. They may doubt the person's reliability, or not, on the basis of their entire testimony. The same goes for...
Evidence such as testimony is evaluated by its source = a method that works for courtrooms and for debates.
Science evaluates hypotheses via experimentation, which is why it is not well-suited to a courtroom or to a debate.
Placing too much emphasis on science to resolve every question leads to...
I already explained the difference. You should pay better attention.
The exculpatory nature has already been explained. Go back and read.
If it's about the Obstruction charge, then you should be aware that Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building is a different charge. It doesn't...
I don't know that we have a significant disagreement here except to say that it's is possible that Chansley case will not be reconsidered because of the waiver of Appeal.
Not as empty as your assertion that the footage was provided to the defense.
Because inculpatory footage was available the...
52:14 of video with an expert lawyer in which not one example of the alleged activity was given! Are you serious? What a waste of time for me to have watched that video! They talked on and on about how serious the alleged activity was and didn't give even one example of it! Disgusting.
You...
The confusopoly of their voting system seems like a valid point - a system designed to prevent voters from making informed decisions. What could possibly go wrong?
Wait... Hold On... Let's think about this for a moment... Do I understand you correctly?
If a group of people decide to genocide another portion of the human population - an event that has taken place at various times in human history, then humanity's standard of morality is that those...