Phoenix Wright
-
Posts
5,329 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Phoenix Wright
-
-
4 hours ago, Sage of Ylisse said:
Am I the only one who has a lukewarm opinion on Trump. I may not like the man too much but I certainly don't hate him either. Though I do have to agree that Paul Ryan is a dunce.
the only thing good about trump so far is that it's clear the repub. party isn't just gonna be his bitch, which is refreshing. my opinions on the trump presidency are softer than my opinions on trump, the man.
3 hours ago, Radiant head said:yeah, while it's dishonest to argue that literally both sides are equally bad (esp. when it's from people who think both sides are too extreme left/right and the correct answer is somewhere in the middle), the democrats are absolutely equally complacent in how fucked up the system is at its root, and weaponize their status as "lesser evil" so that they don't have to actually do anything to please their voters.
after seeing these trump people constantly trip over their dicks and failing to repeal obamacare and pass their muslim bans, i'm convinced we might be living in the best case scenario right now. i would bet hillary winning in 2020, would have just lead to someone worse but smoother than trump.
oh dear god do i hate that too
-
"democrats are to blame"
oh fuck off
-
i don't read it that way. but in any case, this is now semantics; you know what i mean. they're are equally bad, practically speaking, for different reasons (ie, i think they're both equally responsible for impeding progress as a nation).
on the question of who is worse in terms of tactics used, etc., repubs take it hands down.
-
my original comment was made with the intention of sounding more unbiased. at the end of the day, i'm a leftist. of course i feel that republicans are worse--but are they? the examples i gave at least outline that democrats aren't close to perfect.
moreover, what you mean by 'equally bad' was never specified. sure the republican party is aggressive, uncompromising, etc. but democrats seem to behave in any and every way possible to enable those actions. there exists not a balance between the parties, but a clear power gap between them. dems' weak-will, shady dealings, and all its other poor traits make for an equally bad, or rather ineffective, party, but not for the same reasons the republicans are a bad party.
-
nah, i definitely think republicans in power are worse. but the spineless nature of democrats allows for that positive feedback loop.
i remember that vox article--very interesting. sad, mostly, however.
i don't think the election was rigged, though, i was talking about the whole sanders-clinton business.
-
they're willing to forego democracy in the name of oligarchic power, despite cries from the rust belt, progressive left, and in between. they are weak-willed (obamacare is a nice example). and, worst of all, politically powerful democrats don't think there's anything wrong. the party blames its own followers for not believing in the platform.
now ain't that somethin'?
-
11 hours ago, Comrade said:
I didn't give them that title, what do you want from me? I'm just using the title that they have been given. What do you want from me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism#The_.22Four_Horsemen.22
ok, relax yo.
so it turns out, i already know of this fellow. i saw a youtube video where he was surrounded by a number of sjw's and he was trying to discuss the use (rather, why we shouldn't have to use) of non-binary pronouns (zim, zir, etc). he couldn't really get a word in, though it was obvious he was intelligent, coherent, articulate, etc. but you can have these qualities and be wrong.
listening to his interview with joe rogan, i still can't agree with him. were i debating with him, i would spend a bit of time to respond...but i'm not. so use your own damn words. you do this all the time. i'm not here to respond to videos you watch.
equally as annoying, you come to these "revelations," like when you pointed out you "realized something," which are not your own thoughts, but are a regurgitation of the words someone else said. with or without due credit.
-
who are the "atheists"? what is the old age of atheists?
-
17 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:
BBC is sometimes Labour-aligned, CNN is obvious, Daily Mail is actual fake news, as is Buzzfeed, both Times newspapers are super liberal, and the Hill I'm not familiar with. As for the WP, I feel it has something to do with being one of the more traditional newspapers(and it has a catchy theme song).
what kind of argument is this? liberal news outlets don't deserve to attend a press briefing with the white house now, but the likes of breitbart are ok?
-
On 2/21/2017 at 5:23 PM, Sarcopathic said:
See, I think that regardless of who the author is and what he/she said, every single point of view should be published and explored in detail. If we start to celebrate someone not being able to express themselves because "he/she is an asshole" then what is stopping us from celebrating censure?
I despise Voltaire, and I think the guy was slimy at best, rigged lotteries for his own bennefit and his critics towards Shakespeare were quite petty. But I'm glad he could publish his views on the world, that eventually shaped some of the western principles.
No, I'm not saying Milo is the new Voltaire.
I think the guy is using his ideology as a PR stunt to push his agenda, but I WANT him to be able to publish whatever he wants, just like any other person should.
I am not happy with these news.
there's no reason money ought to be spent to make a shitty book full of shitty ideas and have the shitty author make a profit off of it. sorry bud, not every idea is worth a book. it would be a very sad day indeed if a flat earth book came out tomorrow and was praised, promoted etc. because we're all about "exploring a viewpoint in detail." it's a waste of very valuable time.
On 2/22/2017 at 3:50 PM, Raumata said:There's no such thing as a peaceful act of violence. Violence is used to terrorize, subdue, and control others. That's why I hate it.
Regarding that Vice article. Was it really necessary to describe Milo fanboys as the most visually unappealing people ever?
Everyone on this planet is fucking boring, technically. Any opinion you or I hold does not matter once we are dead. People are free to distort our thinking in any way they see fit.
What was the point of this article? You can already look up most of the stuff presented in the article by yourself.
violence is not always for that purpose. sometimes it is used in self-defense. or, as mlk put it, "...in the final analysis, riots [a violent activity] are the voice of the unheard." it's more subtle than you make it, i think.
that technicality doesn't make sense, nor do the ideas that follow. unless you're a nihilist i guess.
-
42 minutes ago, hanhnn said:
I wouldn't use the term Chinese blah blah...., since it's not only apply to China. And it also was not invented by the Ancient Chinese. But I know the Chinese would say otherwise.
Anyway, this lunar calendar is based on the moon's movement, since a moon year and a sun year do not match perfectly, there will be an leap month, a 13th month will be added after a few years to make things align again, so the Lunar New Year is always in January or February.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_calendar
i'm not sure of its accuracy, but it says there's a diff. between certain calendars, so that's why i said it.
-
8 hours ago, Comrade said:
I've spent a lot of time listening to Dr. Jordan Peterson and the New Athiests (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris...) and I realized something.
Hitch and company have it all wrong. They view religion in the style that fundamentalists do. It's either scientifically true or false. That's the wrong way to look at it. Religion is true but not on the same level as scientific truth. It's more of an amalgamation of archetypes that are retold over the years. Peterson refers to it as "meta-truth".
Quite fascinating, really.uhhhhh
'new atheists'? wtf does that mean? also, that argument doesn't make any sense
On ١٥/٢/٢٠١٧ at 7:31 AM, Jotari said:How does that work? Double leap years? Or is it basically ignore the whole dissonance that'll eventually result?
the gregorian calendar isn't perfect either, since the earth's rotation is slowing over time. perfect enough though. i can't find any sources on the accuracy of the chinese lunar calendar rn, after a quick search, but it's also likely to be 'perfect enough.'
-
On ١٣/٢/٢٠١٧ at 6:26 PM, Fly_or_Die said:
I obviously don't know everybody's background in this thread -- and certainly, maybe some of the "let dying languages die" people really do think that's for the best. But I think you'd have a very, very different view of things in different circumstances.
I'm a speaker of a dying language (specifically, as somebody else in this thread mentioned, a language being actively suppressed by the Chinese government in favor of Mandarin). The culture is dying with he language because there are no proper translations of many words into Mandarin, only approximations that lose all the nuanced meaning inherent in the original traditional script. I'm perfectly fluent in English and Mandarin, everybody is capable of learning multiple languages, and thus I fail to see why anybody should celebrate the death of a distinct language and its linked culture.
It is not an accident that the Chinese government pursues a policy of forced Mandarin education. It is to eliminate minorities, which the government sees as a threat to its authority. There is nothing progressive about the death of languages. It is a process of forcibly assimilating other cultures.
a common issue with translation is that there are some words that simply aren't present. but yeah, this is an example of what i was trying to say.
on another note, i'm learning mandarin, and i was wondering if you or others had some solid yt channels or shows or other media (music, etc) that are entertaining/informative/educational? can be canto too i suppose. i'm not yet at a level where i can search this stuff confidently lol. still need to use most of the words in english, which severely limits my searches.
-
41 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:
Legitimate monarch. Basically the only one with any kind of legal legitimacy, if America was to become a Monarchy.
Monarch nominates people, either Congress or the people can confirm it.
I too want democracy with checks and balances, but more secure checks and balances.
you have to realize the futility in elizabeth ii becoming a monarch, though? is there no other process in your mind? no other way to select a monarch?
that's already a presidential power (i remember your personal distinction already).
-
On 2/15/2017 at 2:31 PM, Hylian Air Force said:
As much as I would like to keep all the levels of bench in the US accountable, I don't think electing SCOTUS justices is going to solve anything. If a judge passes down an unpopular (but correct) opinion, how are their decisions going to last if they can be replaced in the next election? Courts should be constant, only ever changing when there is a natural vacancy. If judges could be elected and voted out, there would be more 16th Amendments, more Dred Scotts, more Plessy vs. Fergusons, a windshield-wiper effect of what's constitutional and what's not. Having judges be constant means they will also be consistent with their personal leanings, not the whims of the State.
what is a correct opinion?
it's not likely that judges would just throw out old decisions. that doesn't even happen with legislation.
16 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:Well, she's the legitimate ruler from a Monarchist perspective. I'm going out on a limb and saying you'd have the same reaction to anyone I'd suggest.
Which is why I don't support an elected official appointing the Supreme Court.
I feel like at this point we're at an impasse then, because we can't really debate on differing philosophies. I'll still try, though. I believe that mob rule has the potential to lead to an autocrat anyway; some of the worst dictatorships in history were born of faulty democratic systems. Revolutionary France, to be specific. I think talking about democracy as the most moral system is pointless, because government should ultimately not be about morals.
The people voting on nominees might actually work. I do think that the ability to say no to an appointee is very important; so long as they can't take initiative in choosing, that removes most of the chance for abusing the system.
Never said I wanted a 2 party system, I explicitly said PARLIAMENTARY deadlocks.
legitimate ruler...of the united states?? no, she is not.
wait, how would you want the supreme court to be established?
you want to establish a government that has the highest chance of being fair, that is democracy, with some checks and balances. not pure democracy (ie, mob rule).
indeed, congress certainly should have the ability to say no. we agree on all of these points, i think.
-
12 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:
The Head of State would be Queen Elizabeth II, in a similar role to the other Commonwealth Monarchies.
The distinction would be rather thin when candidates would campaign (as they explicitly would) for how they would interpret the law, just as candidates for congress campaign for what laws they will support.
A rhetorical one. It's the fault of politicians.
How is the law not objective? How are elected experts better than appointed ones?
That's assuming that the monarch agrees with one party fully, which probably won't be the case. I also think that if you pull shit like what Cruz did a few years back you deserve to lose power.
I would, incidentally, support electoral reform for congress; we agree there. You also said you would support the people electing people for enforcement and interpretation.
how about no. try again
that's already the case! but they're just appointed instead. antonin scalia would have never become a justice were it not for a deeply conservative president's appointment. lbj, jfk, fdr, obama, etc. would have never selected him, regardless of personal merit. judges already sell themselves based off of previous court leanings and decisions.
and the people.
sorry, definitely laziness on my part. the interpretation of the law is subjective, so law in and of itself is not wholly objective. laws as they are definitely are objective. elected experts are better than appointed ones not based on actual substance, but based on personal political philosophy. i believe democracy is preferable to most other forms of government. i would rather the mob rule than an autocrat or an oligarch.
an appointment in my eyes takes power away from the people. some appointments are fine simply because it would be exhausting to vote for everything under the sun, but i can definitely fathom a system where we the people at least help with putting some judges in the highest judicial office there is. i think congress failing to act on obama's nomination is breaking constitutional law--or at least undermining the president in an unprecedented way. it'd be nice if we could intervene. of course, it's happened before, and it was wrong then too, but not for as long as the obama nomination.
it can and often will be the case in a two party system. unless your monarch will just be undermining congress constantly?
i'm not sure of your last point. indeed, i think all branches of government should be electable in some way. mind you, it's not like i've written political theory before, so this belief is by no means fleshed out. i'm really not sure that a judicial election will absolutely work for the better, but i have an inkling that it will.
-
14 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:
No, it might as well not. There are multiple forms of Monarchical legitimacy; the one adopted by Constitutional Monarchies is the legalist version, i.e. that the monarch is the legal sovereign. Divine right in this day and age is not used by any Monarchies with the exception of the Islamic State and (if you squint) North Korea. It denotes a totalitarian form of Monarchy, and has real implications for the law. If it is as you say, and all Monarchies are divine right, then firstly, do you claim that it has a legal effect, and secondly, if not, so what?
I am aware of what it means in theory. In practice, however, a separation of powers becomes completely pointless if you have them all elected, because the purpose of Separation of Powers is to prevent one faction from having all the power, not to do exactly what the people want. In my view, the ultimate sovereign should NOT be the people, it should be the law. Now, the people should be able to determine the law, but there is an important distinction: if you make the interpretation of the law up to the people, you destroy the law and in practice make the Republic a system where 51% of the people can rule. The law''s interpretation not being up to the people is the difference between rule of law and mob rule.
And whose fault is that?
I know. To illustrate my point, do we let the population as a whole vote in court cases? Of course not, instead we carefully screen the jury for biases. Similarly, we shouldn't elect judges to the Supreme Court because the interpretation of the law, as before, is objective. Subjective should be up to the people, objective should be up to experts, basically.
Executive, you mean. Letting the monarch break parliamentary deadlocks would not only ensure that something would be done to solve the problem, it would also incentivize politicians to work towards a compromise lest they lose their power to the monarch.
The people create laws, and they don't enforce or interpret them, because if the people don't have to abide by the law (by way of electing judges that bypass them) then you have tyranny of the majority. Simple.
Maybe; this also brings up an important point that both branches should still be accountable. With enough public support, the monarch could be forced to abdicate (and replaced by their heir, NOT A REPUBLIC) and judges should be forced to step down. I haven't ironed out the details of course, and this is by no means complete, so don't treat it as such.
let's reset course here: if the united states today became a constitutional monarchy, how is the head of state (be it king, queen, whatever) selected?
but a republican president is currently appointing a republican-biased scotus judge-- with a republican congress. scotus is also right-leaning just a bit. electing a representative to interpret the law is fundamentally different than the body of people interpreting the law. and the same goes for the other branches of government. that's a republic.
what kind of question is this?
loose definition of the word carefully there. but in any case, objective conflicts (law isn't objective btw) should be up to the experts. elected experts, not experts by birthright. and in my ideal world also not by appointment.
yeah exec sorry. anyway, they lose power if they disagree, which is fundamentally undemocratic. i can't support something like that.
the people do almost as much creating of the laws as they do interpreting them (almost none). and most people also don't enforce the law. you're forming connections that aren't there in order to create a basis for a system of government which is undemocratic and outdated.
-
On 2/8/2017 at 2:46 AM, blah the Prussian said:
Fine. How would this work? Also, for the love of God how many times do I have to say I don't favor divine right for you to stop strawmanning?
True Separation of Powers is when you have a system in place to ensure that the same group doesn't come to power in all three branches. As we see in the US, it's very easy to bypass the Legislative Branch as President when they'll vote for what you want. I am not worried about a single branch getting too powerful, I'm worried about the ELECTORATE being bad. In the French First Republic, for example, because there was no real separation of powers, there wasn't anything stopping the Jacobins from passing universal conscription, and eventually the Reign of Terror.
That's like saying the people don't make decisions in the US because they elect representatives. Colloquial English spoken here. Basically, when people elect politicians, they're electing them based on ideas, which are subjective. Competence, however, is objective, and if people were to elect judges into the Supreme Court, the conversation would be entirely about their policies, which shouldn't be a factor.
I mean as one of the reasons why people vote for a politician is due to who they might appoint to the Supreme Court.
See, I would have the Monarch propose a nominee, and then the Senate can deny it; if they don't, the nomination passes.
Well, then what are you advocating? If you put the power to essentially bypass the Constitution in the hands of the same people who are likely to try to do just that, what precisely do you expect to happen?
US de facto doesn't have Separation of Powers because an elected official appoints the Supreme Court, thus in practice a party can get absolute power.
you want them to be unelected and decided via family line, right? well, that might as well be divine right.
no it isn't. a separation of powers is the separation of the three basic aspects of law and the powers of government: legislation, enforcement (executive), and interpretation (judicial). it's not a bypass if they vote for what they want (which might happen to be what you want as president). if i'm off the mark, please provide more detail.
it has unfortunately already been brought down to that level.
i'm advocating that people have more of a say. i'm not quite sure how you're interpreting it differently.
us absolutely has separation of powers, de jure or de facto. i'm not really sure how a voting body would have more to do with breaking down separation of powers than just letting the electoral branch (also unelected in your ideal world) decide what happens if congress refuses to vote. like, what??
i cannot fathom how you can possibly assert that having 2/3 of government be unelectable is somehow a better balance/separation of power than 3/3 (or 2/3 currently) being electable.
-
On 2/6/2017 at 11:18 PM, blah the Prussian said:
- But, again that's not true separation of powers,
- and having SCOTUS elected would be a disaster for other reasons.
- The Supreme Court are about making decisions on the Constitution.
- The people should have the right to change the Constitution, but not make decisions based on it.
- We already have Supreme Court appointments being a political issue as is;
- do you really want elections where candidates can promise what parts of the Constitution they'll ignore?
- My perspective is that democracy is not an end goal, it is just another form of government leading to good governance. I think history has shown that it overall has the best track record,
- but not when the power of the people is unlimited.
- If you have all three branches of government directly elected by the people, you remove what little separation of powers America has left.
i'm sort of upset you dismissed the idea outright without even asking any questions for how i think it could work. yet you want people to want to live under an unelected, "divine" monarchical ruler. ok.
1. why not, and what is
2. why
3. ok, so
4. they wouldn't be. they'd be electing a representative to do that.
5. exactly!
6. it wouldn't be a standard election. it would more closely resemble what it takes to add an amendment to the constitution (though not exactly). a president could come up with a few appointees. if congress fails to vote (which happened to obama for record time and a handful of other presidents), the people should be involved. congress not voting on the appointed judge from obama was disgraceful, and that sort of thing should be circumvented when possible.
7. you damn right it does
8. examples of what you mean. i'm not advocating mob rule
9. explain what this is supposed to mean
-
i don't think any big office should be unelected. so scotus should be elected by the people.
additionally, gridlock in congress should have some sort of way for the people to be involved.
-
On 2/3/2017 at 0:38 AM, Thane said:
That depends entirely on what you mean by imperialism and how you limit it. Sadly, I have to go now, but I'd like to hear your definition later.
blah pretty much got it. i mean the cultural aspect that you and blah spoke a little about in terms of language use, in addition to the forcible prohibition of speaking in certain languages (or lesser degrees of the imperial aggressor limiting the use of the native language).
-
41 minutes ago, Rezzy said:
Another thought is that even if languages don't die, they evolve. English is the worst offender, since English today is unintelligible from a thousand years ago.
Even Latin, which is considered dead just evolved into Italian and other Romance languages.
"worst offender," or best example? i'd wager nearly every single language in existence is unintelligible from its 1000 year-old root language, though.
26 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:Exactly. Adapt to survive, evolve, or become a dead language. The more people use a language, the more useful it is. Languages are fundamentally tools, they are important to culture, but their cultural utility does not outweigh their practical utility.
languages die because of imperialism mostly, not because of a failure to adapt. chinese would be around today, but perhaps literacy rates wouldn't be so high were it not for the language reforms of the 1940s/50s.
-
that's fair. again, though, i think he's a bad pick for lots of other reasons.
1 hour ago, Rezzy said:The fact that the tweet is still up now, makes me think it was sarcasm, since he probably would have deleted it by now, if it was taking the Onion seriously, which sadly, I see a lot.
i noted that i think spicer is joking. tbh even if spicer were an idiot, it's so unlikely that he doesn't know what the onion is that he'd had to have been living under a rock for it to be true.
-
yeah, it's been established that he's reached majority disapproval in record time.
he's the most controversial president of my time certainly, and perhaps the most controversial in a long time. his policies are divisive, authoritarian, and plainly stupid. his actions are selfish. he's a megalomaniac.
edit: just my $.02 on the sean spicer thing: the tweet was made in jest, but that's irrelevant. whether he's aware of the fact that he lies and is proud of it does not matter. he's still a liar.
Home page feedback
in Member Feedback
Posted · Edited by Phoenix Wright
I've got two main suggestions that I've been thinking about lately and I'd like to discuss it a bit with staff and members alike.
To begin, how do y'all feel about stories jumping immediately to the first (theoretically) "unread" line on the main page? I've never encountered another website that did this, and after months of its implementation, I can say with certainty that it's annoying. It should just start at the beginning when you decide to read the full article.
It's annoying mostly because it assumes you read the preview, which is not necessarily true. For any Echoes articles, I just click read more immediately because I already know I'm interested. If I did read the preview, the jump begins precisely after where you left off, which is awkward. It should at least begin on the last sentence/image/line that was visible in the preview to keep the flow of reading.
The other thing is a bit minor, but still worth asking about: can we create tabs or something on the main page to filter news? I don't care about Cipher or Heroes, so it'd be nice if I could skip them entirely. We could reserve the "main" news page for announcements of new games (so, when Heroes was first announced, or when Echoes was first announced), website management news, etc. We can put other news in tabs that indicate to a reader when something is new, like the [new!] used around the rest of the site.