America or Western Europe?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@JoelUpchurch

Okay start bringing out your sources. So far, you have suggested there are better sources, but you haven’t actually mentioned any.

No, I haven’t; you’re incorrect. And i’m not of a hivemind with other posters who happen to be disagreeing with you and have said that.

My sole problem is your admission that the majority of your opinion comes from reading single sources. Logically speaking, you would do better, if experienced voices are your goal, to widen your search. That’s it. I make no claim as to whether these other sources would be better or worse than the ones you currently follow. Given that your reasoning behind the worth of one is that he’s a retired prison psychiatrist, I would tend to suspect that there exist other retired prison psychiatrists, or active ones with years of experience, or people active in other, but related, fields with years of experience.

Now, I make zero attempt to declare whether their views are worth listening to. However, by selecting to follow the views of one, you’ve indicated that you’ve formed a comparative appraisal - essentially, you’ve picked your guy out of all the other guys for a reason. Logically speaking, then, I suppose those who have declared that there are other worthy sources out there would be right to demand examples of those you disagree with, given that you already have examined the other sources in order to pick the guy you have. You already have that information, as is necessary for your choice.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@JoelUpchurch

Interesting. What neighborhood do you live in? I don’t need to know the street or anything. I’m just trying to figure out if your experience is actually typical. Have you ever living in social housing? Do you know anyone living in social housing? is there any public drunkenness in your neighborhood on a Friday or Saturday night? Is there any issue with littering in you neighborhood? Have you every attended a football match for a major club?

I live just outside London. I’ve never lived in “social housing”, but do know people, including relatives, who do; there is public drunkenness in my area on Friday and Saturday nights, myself included on occasion; there is littering; I have attended several football matches for Arsenal.

I’m not afraid to go out at night.

[JoelUpchurch]

@Candyman74

Wow. That’s not only so wrong, it’s also hideously offensive.
And… uh… when did I mention “doddering old tits”? Are you now just inventing stuff to somehow make your fictional version of somewhere you’ve never been a reality? Cos I never said that.

Sorry, **Really Not All That Bright **was the person that made the “doddering old tit” remark. I confused him with you.

Your implication that I’m a drunk who would beat up anybody, let alone throwing liquor bottles into peoples’ back yard, is not only insulting but utterly untrue. I’ve never been in any kind of violent situation in my life, and when I finish a drink the pub staff tend to whip away the glass before I have time to turn it unto a random projectile directed at other peoples’ houses (not that they’d let people walk off with pint glasses anyway). Certainly nobody has ever been afraid of me in my life (and besides, it’s too far for me to walk home after I’ve been out - I call a cab; or is it the cab drivers who are deathly afraid of me?)

This doesn’t seem to be consistent with your previous statement.

Drunkenness and alcohol are not viewed the same way ad in your country - I’ve been drunk in public hundreds and hundreds of time and never mugged anyone.

This was your response to my previous statement about drunks walking on the street, so now your story is that you just tipple in a bar and take a taxi home?
Frankly you new story doesn’t sound plausible. BTW, most people would interpret being drunk “in public hundreds and hundreds of time” as being an alcoholic.

[JoelUpchurch]

@Revenant_Threshold

I live just outside London. I’ve never lived in “social housing”, but do know people, including relatives, who do; there is public drunkenness in my area on Friday and Saturday nights, myself included on occasion; there is littering; I have attended several football matches for Arsenal.

I’m not afraid to go out at night.

I guess I wasn’t clear. It is the sober people that are afraid, not the drunks.

You never been frightened at a football match?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZAhN0XQkQ&feature=related

[PaulParkhead]

Are we still expected to take this line of argument seriously, JoelUpchurch?

That’s a genuine question: in GD, my understanding is that we’re meant to be sincere and not, for example, post stuff just to get a rise out of the Brits. And yet you’ve suggested Candyman74 may be guilty of outright thuggery for no reason other than the fact that he lives here and that you read a few newspaper columns, apparently written by a doddering old tit.

Do you sincerely believe this stuff? Or are you just winding us up?

[Candyman74]

@JoelUpchurch

Sorry, **Really Not All That Bright **was the person that made the “doddering old tit” remark. I confused him with you.

This doesn’t seem to be consistent with your previous statement.

This was your response to my previous statement about drunks walking on the street, so now your story is that you just tipple in a bar and take a taxi home?
Frankly you new story doesn’t sound plausible. BTW, most people would interpret being drunk “in public hundreds and hundreds of time” as being an alcoholic.

And now you’re saying I’m lying? That pubs aren’t public or something? Hint - “pub” means “public house”. You are growing more offensive by the post. You have the gall now to claim to know not only my country, but my own very actions better than I do, and that you have determined that it’s implausible that I drink in a pub then catch a cab home? You have decided that I, what, walk the whole way and are publically accusing me of despicable violent crimes?

Holy crap. Holy, holy, crap. I truly do not know what to say.

Think what you want, man. Guess it doesn’t really matter what you choose to believe.

But again… wow.

[Marley23]

@JoelUpchurch

Frankly I concluded that Candyman74 has more in common with the people that the people who are afraid to leave their homes at night are afraid of. I was trying to determine if he lived in a low crime neighborhood and got a lot more information than I bargained for. His own description of his conduct is consistent with it and the ageism is his comments about doddering old tits is consistent with a drunk that would beat up an old person who complained him throwing his empty liquor bottles in his yard.

You’re out of line here, JoelUpchurch. You can say Candyman74 is mistaken or uninformed, but you can’t accuse him of being a vandal and a violent criminal. This kind of post belongs in the Pit. Don’t do it in Great Debates again.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Do I still get to beat up old people?

[Illuminatiprimus]

What happened to this debate? It started off interesting and then became the paranoid fantasy of JU. Any chance we can get it back on track?

Let’s try - how do people think that the European Convention on Human Rights stacks up against the bill of rights/constitutional rights people have in the US? For me I feel the ECHR is far more progressive and encompassing whilst being specific and as a result better protected by it. The US constitution seems to be usable as a justification for just about anything - you’re forever hearing of people having their constitutional rights infringed on pretty much any subject (and so you could argue it definitively protects pretty much nothing).

[wintertime]

Right you are, Illuminatiprimus.

In Germany, the discussion of the EU’s “Demokratiedefizit” (democratic deficit) is old, widespread and currently – in the face of the crisis of the financial market - relevant once again.

Many critics approach the subject either by arguing that a European people does not exist, so the foundation of any democratic process is missing, while others point to the institutions of the EU that are mostly sealed up against any participation of the citizens that they are meant to represent.

The legal basis, the Treaties of the European Union is also critized for a hermetic complexity that makes it close to impossible to actually know what action is legal/justifiable under what circumstance – and the national Federal Constitutional Courts have struggled more than once to reconcile the intergovernmental treaties with the national constitutions.

Finally, there is an undeniable imbalance of power between the prime EU institution that is legitimized directly by a democratic process, the European Parliament, compared to the European Commission – the representation of the national governments. Though this argument is shaky at best: the national governments are all the result of democratic processes, after all, and therefore well legitimized.

The idea that the European Parliament should have a prerogative is dubious at best. The German Federal Constitutional Court, for example, pointed out that the Parliament is a representation of the citizens of every single nation within the EU but not of the citizens of the EU – a fine distinction but a serious one: It denies the existence of a European people and a European nation that derives its legitimacy from them.

The EU is (still) a confederation of, in principle, independent nations – which also means that the national institutions have the final say in all matters – a perspective that was emphasized by the German Federal Constitutional Court when the reach of the European Courts was discussed. Basically, our Federal Court showed them the finger and made clear that the German Court decides what’s constitutional and what’s not, regardless of any decision made by European institutions.

An idea that is shared by other national High Courts as well.

Which means, Illuminatiprimus, that something like the European Convention on Human Rights can be reinterpreted by the national custodians of Human Rights in any way they see fit. That diminishes the power of such conventions considerably.

[wintertime]

@xtisme

As a quick example, take freedom of speech. It’s protected in the US and in ‘Western Europe’ (which, btw, is many different countries, with many different languages, customs, norms and hats…lots and LOTS of different hats).

While it might still be true that America offers more protection against censorship from the government than most other countries, many deep incisions into that right are nowadays made by privately held corporations or organizations that control the facilities that enable people to talk to each other publicly in the first place.

Does a constitutionally guaranteed free speech mean that you can say whatever you want on the Dope, for example? No. In fact, the owners could establish rules that limit that right toward non-existence. Of course, they can’t throw you into prison if you refuse to obey their rules but they can ban you from speaking ever again on their grounds and erase your words from the - local - digital memory.

Something similar has always been true within the domain of the more traditional mass media.

The more public discourse is enabled and controlled by companies, the more we have to take censorship by them seriously – and, correct me if I’m wrong, I think America has yet to find an answer to this limit to free speech, just like the European nations.

[Candyman74]

@wintertime

While it might still be true that America offers more protection against censorship from the government than most other countries, many deep incisions into that right are nowadays made by privately held corporations or organizations that control the facilities that enable people to talk to each other publicly in the first place.

Does a constitutionally guaranteed free speech mean that you can say whatever you want on the Dope, for example? No. In fact, the owners could establish rules that limit that right toward non-existence. Of course, they can’t throw you into prison if you refuse to obey their rules but they can ban you from speaking ever again on their grounds and erase your words from the - local - digital memory.

Something similar has always been true within the domain of the more traditional mass media.

The more public discourse is enabled and controlled by companies, the more we have to take censorship by them seriously – and, correct me if I’m wrong, I think America has yet to find an answer to this limit to free speech, just like the European nations.

Yup, the US Constitution merely prevents Congress from passing a law which restricts speech. Unless one is Congress and is passing a law (of which the SDMB or any private company is not), the Constitutional protection does not apply; your right to not have Congress pass a law restricting your freedom of speech isn’t being diminished in any way. Certainly a private corporation, entity or person is not obligated to publish your speech for you which, essentially, is what a messageboard does.

[downtown1441]

In terms of individual freedoms I’d say Western Europe because of the much freer drug laws and the availability of hookers and such, but in terms of group freedom I’d say the U.S. has more association and social capital.

Not by law, just by practice - Americans are much more likely to be involved in our communities, and have a stronger sense of nationalism.

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@downtown1441

In terms of individual freedoms I’d say Western Europe because of the much freer drug laws and the availability of hookers and such, but in terms of group freedom I’d say the U.S. has more association and social capital.

Not by law, just by practice - Americans are much more likely to be involved in our communities, and have a stronger sense of nationalism.

You’ll have to explain to me how a greater sense of nationalism leads to more freedom. I think we went on that road before, and it wasnt more freedom at the end of it, it was mass graves.

As for “involvement with others”, the low participation numbers in elections in the US compared to Western Europe would rather prove the contrary (the weakness of labor unions would also point to an “everyone for himself, winners on top” mentality).

[Illuminatiprimus]

@wintertime

[snippy]

Which means, Illuminatiprimus, that something like the European Convention on Human Rights can be reinterpreted by the national custodians of Human Rights in any way they see fit. That diminishes the power of such conventions considerably.

You make some extremely good points wintertime, and the point on the lack of good and effective representation within the EU is something I had neglected to consider.

I disagree with you slightly on your points about the ineffectiveness of the ECHR though because it does require member states to have their own human right institutions that mirror the conventions main points. Whilst the application and interpretation of those points can be disputed at a local leve, the convention and the rulings of the European courts are taken very seriously. In the UK we have to consider the impact of our policies and laws on human rights as per the convention, not just at a local level through the Human Rights Act. We don’t take a laize faire “see you in court at Strasbourg, you’ll never win” approach, and so whilst you’re right there are isn’t a uniform application of the convention it DOES do its job of putting human rights on the agenda for member states.

Want to be in the EU? You can’t have open discrimination against homosexuals, or women, or religious minorities, or endorse slavery etc. Yes these things do happen, but there is a mechanism for challenging them and for holding the nation states to account when they don’t tackle them properly. The example that always springs to mind for me on this is when the UK had an unequal age of consent for gays than for straights and because someone was taking the government to the court of human rights it put additional pressure on the need to change the age. Sure, it happened quite slowly due to political resistance to it in the House of Lords, but it forced the issue and showed that we were glaringly out of kilter with the moral standards we professed to want to uphold.

So yes, there are theoretical and sometimes real limits to what our human rights framework can do compared to something as clearly dilineated as the power of the US federal government, but it’s a lot better than nothing at all.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@downtown1441

Not by law, just by practice - Americans are much more likely to be involved in our communities, and have a stronger sense of nationalism.

In what sense are we “more involved in our communities”? Western Europe tends to have slightly higher (though still piss-poor) voter turnout.

[Nava]

@Capitaine_Zombie

As for “involvement with others”, the low participation numbers in elections in the US compared to Western Europe would rather prove the contrary (the weakness of labor unions would also point to an “everyone for himself, winners on top” mentality).

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

In what sense are we “more involved in our communities”? Western Europe tends to have slightly higher (though still piss-poor) voter turnout.

One way in which “more community involvement” may appear higher in the US is that there is more associationism there; people there are more likely to define themselves by which associations they belong to or which places they volunteer in. It doesn’t really reflect a higher degree of community involvement, IME, just a different way of presenting it.

For example my mother belongs to several associations; she is even the President of one - but if you ask her “what associations do you belong to?”, her instinctive response is “none”. “None?” “:smack: Oh wait, uhm… do those I’m required to belong to count? Let’s see, there’s the HOA (complusory), and the Pool, and the Gym, and the Library Book Club, and the Friends of the Sacred Heart (I’m the Prez!), and TOL, and…” In Spain, you don’t “sign up” for a Parish, ever; in the US, I lived in three separate Parishes where I had to register if I wanted to volunteer there and in two where registering was not a volunteering requirement.

I belong to several professional associations, but in Spain you don’t list those in your resume; in the US, people do. In Europe, you don’t usually list your volunteer work; in the US, you do.

[wintertime]

@Illuminatiprimus

So yes, there are theoretical and sometimes real limits to what our human rights framework can do compared to something as clearly dilineated as the power of the US federal government, but it’s a lot better than nothing at all.

I agree, the European Court of Human Rights, the custodian of the convention, is increasingly important within Europe to harmonize the national laws concerning Human Rights and to put pressure on national authorities to adhere to the standards set.

Our German Federal Constitutional Court, for example, has declared that the convention has the status of federal law (which, of course, puts it below constitutional law) and any court that decides against the convention or prior rulings of the ECHR has to explain in detail why they did so.

This puts a lot of pressure on our national courts to follow European rule but, once again, the highest national courts still stand above any European agreements or institutions.

Neither Germany nor England are worrying examples of national sovereignty when it comes to Human Rights but what about Hungary?

I wouldn’t be surprised if you were as troubled by the develoment there as I am. It’s not just that one of the new laws restrict the media in ways that have not much to do with “freedom of the press”, the new constitution includes passages that can very easily be interpreted in a way that promotes … anti-democratic developments.

We can protest, of course, but there is no European institution that has any right to force the issue – and given the lack of a truly democratic foundation in the sense of a union of European citizens, I still agree that there shouldn’t be an institution with such a power.

As long as the EU is a union of nations, the nations need to have the final word.

And therefore, it’s a serious “oversight” that we have no way to expel nations from the EU once they have joined it - even if they break treaties left and right.

Anyway, I don’t actually disagree with you - especially not with the sentiment present in your words.

[JoelUpchurch]

@Candyman74

And now you’re saying I’m lying? That pubs aren’t public or something? Hint - “pub” means “public house”.

Hint- They call them public houses because they are run by Publicans , otherwise known as tavernkeepers, not because they are in public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_house

This is an important distinction. It the police came into a pub and arrested everyone for public intoxication, they would be wrong. Now let us review the conversation:

I said:

is there any public drunkenness in your neighborhood on a Friday or Saturday night?

You said:

I’ve been drunk in public hundreds and hundreds of time and never mugged anyone.

Would a reasonable person conclude that I was talking about people that were drunk indoors or would they assume I was talking about people that were drunk outdoors? You comment seems bizarre, since I wasn’t even asking about your personal behavior.

[gonzomax]

America does jail a hell of a lot more of its citizens than other countries. Ask those people how free we are?