Stack Exchange
log in

Hasse1987

 Discussion on answer by T.E.D.: Is th…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
Hasse1987
May 30, 2024 12:59
I personally would like to accept the view you presented here, but did you answer the central question regarding the lack of Blacks in Ottoman territories?
 

 Discussion on answer by T.E.D.: Did e…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
Hasse1987
Sep 11, 2023 13:04
are you using "slaveowner" and "enslaver" to mean different things?
 

 Discussion on answer by Dale M: Why w…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Hasse1987
Jan 21, 2023 23:35
"the biggest driver was taking this grain of truth and then blowing it out of all proportion." Any evidence for this claim, which is really the entire tenor of the answer? In other words, what's the basis for claiming that "those in power" weren't mainly concerned about gambling/crime, rather were "despairing" over "working class peoples' recreational activities"?
 

 Discussion on answer by novafluff: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Hasse1987
Jun 11, 2022 13:22
@JonBentley Which is why I specified "US jurisdiction". And note that the answer doesn't say "this would be theft in England & Wales".
Hasse1987
Jun 11, 2022 13:22
@DRF Look up the legal definition of "taking". It doesn't include being given the laptop, and not asking for it back. No US jurisdiction would impose an affirmative duty on someone to call to figure out a way to return the laptop. This would be viewed as abandoned property based on the email exchange OP describes. In OP's situation, I would (and have) hang onto the laptop until they asked for it, unless there was some prior agreement omitted from the OP's account, and unless I expected the company to serve as a reference.
Hasse1987
Jun 11, 2022 13:22
Don't exaggerate. This isn't theft in any US jurisdiction, at least under the facts given. Maybe you mean that in (your) moral sense, but not theft in a legal sense.
 

 Discussion on answer by Avery: Is Ame…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Hasse1987
May 30, 2022 03:52
So is the Lankford analysis peer-reviewed?
 

 Discussion on answer by user2768: Wha…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Hasse1987
Apr 2, 2021 16:34
Every university I've worked at leaves this to the instructor's discretion (though not the TA--true) without articulating any university-wide policy. Even for covid-specific issues the policy has been vague ("be lenient considerate of the difficulties students are going through").
 

 Discussion on answer by o.m.: How wou…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Hasse1987
Dec 31, 2020 06:28
This answer only seems to justify "teaching tracks" in STEM fields
 

 Discussion on answer by Just a guy: C…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Hasse1987
Aug 5, 2020 21:25
@Justaguy We're arguing semantics. What you call "constiutional/unconstitutional" I am calling "an argument for constitutionality/unconstitutionality". I believe your usage is nonstandard, making your lede paragraph misleading, hence the downvote.
Hasse1987
Aug 5, 2020 21:25
" To the extent that 18 U.S.C. § 611, which forbids aliens from voting for President, contradicts that power, it is unconstitutional." The supreme court is decides what is and isn't consitutional. Did I miss your citation to this holding? Because the answer looks like your interpretation, based on the text, history, etc. There are plenty of previously "obvious" states rights (using arguments such as yours) that the supreme court has determined do not exist.
 

 Discussion on answer by tim: Did Trum…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Hasse1987
Jun 4, 2020 02:30
@Araucaria-Nothereanymore. Yes some footage of violence has been circulated. And you have no idea what proportion of violence that footage represents, do you? Is this all based on assumptions about people's motives?
Hasse1987
Jun 4, 2020 02:29
@Araucaria-Nothereanymore. And how do you plan to go about establishing there isn't such footage?
Hasse1987
Jun 4, 2020 02:29
@Araucaria-Nothereanymore. That means you have multiple contradictory reliable sources, a common situation, not that there are no reliable sources supporting "those claims".
Hasse1987
Jun 4, 2020 02:29
@tim "here is no reliable source supporting the claims about people throwing things at the police" What is your definition of "reliable source" that excludes the law enforcement and NPS police?
 

 Discussion on answer by Erwan: Freedo…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Hasse1987
Mar 25, 2019 19:59
The original question was ambiguous, whether referring to the general principle of free speech (second citation given in the question) or its enactment as a law (first citation). You should clarify this answer is referring specifically to its enactment as a law. E.g., Twitter, which the the poster mentions, espouses "freedom of expression" in its ToS, but that doesn't leave it subject to the first amendment.
 

 Discussion on answer by elliot svenss…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Hasse1987
Feb 6, 2019 21:41
What does this answer add above the evidence alluded to in the question, which the op already found insufficient?
 

 Discussion on answer by Peter: Why is…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Hasse1987
Jan 14, 2019 14:58
@Peter 1) Your first sentence and "tl;dr" asserts that different sides fill in the blanks differently. So if, as you say, the answer doesn't discuss that, then you haven't established what you claim. More importantly, you are currently answering the question "Why does the pro-wall side wrongly support building a wall?" not the balanced question "Why is a wall a polarising issue?". 2) No. Whether it is a "claim" or as you say a "conclusion", the assertion "There is no basis to assume X" is not the same as "X is not true".
Hasse1987
Jan 14, 2019 14:58
This answer seems to promise some claims without delivering. For example "People on different sides of the divide fill in the blanks differently, so they end up with different conclusions." is a nice beginning; but I only see the answer discussing how the pro-wall side "fills in the blanks". As a second example, "not a single one is true.*" is asserted and then, following the asterisk, we find weaker claims like "there is no basis to assume [one of the statements is true]".
 

 Discussion on answer by Kamil Drakari…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Hasse1987
Nov 4, 2018 05:36
@DavidSchwartz I agree that would be unconstitutional but I don't see the relevance of that. If you're trying to say that the law being unconstitutional precludes a certain reading, I have to disagree. Plenty of legislatures pass statutes to send a certain message when everyone knows they will be invalidated once tested (off the top of my head, in MA just a couple years ago, the statute banning taking pictures that was aimed at getting rid of people surreptitiously taking salacious pictures of girls on the subway).
Hasse1987
Nov 4, 2018 05:36
@trlkly Actually the answer says that the 50k fine is restricted to owners. My point was that that fine isn't necessarily as bad as imprisonment for a year. And the law quoted in the answer says that imprisonment is a possibility for all "who shall aid in or incite, cause or bring about, in whole or in part, such a violations". That kind of language is broad enough to capture non-owners who bring their observations to the attention of the owner.
Hasse1987
Nov 4, 2018 05:36
This answer seems to focus on the fine to conclude that the claim is grossly exaggerated, where the question asks about both arrest and the fine. The possibility of arrest appears throughout the cited statutes; might some not think being imprisoned for up to a year to be the main threat? Also, I think a much more reliable way to say that a certain kind of prosecution is unlikely is not an armchair interpretation of the statutes, but what prosecutors have actually been doing with the statute esp in bargaining (though that's much harder to find), or at least judges' interpretations.
 

 Discussion on answer by Machavity: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Hasse1987
Oct 17, 2018 16:19
@Machavity I didn't downvote but I would add that you don't need to draw such strong conclusions to answer the op's question. Eg, you don't need to establish that she "clearly" derived a benefit from her claimed ancestry, but only that her conduct raises a serious inference that she did so in the minds of many, in order to show why her ancestry is a political issue.
 

 Discussion on question by Kaito Kid: …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Hasse1987
Sep 7, 2018 21:11
In US constitutional law at least, there are several bases for protecting a class, and the presence of an "immutable characteristic" is just one. Is your question just, why did the Founders care to protect something (you consider to be) chosen?