We sure do. I just had kids graduate from high school. They learned all those things. Even my “barely graduated went to tech school” kid learned logs/molecular weight/ and read The Scarlet Letter.
My faith in humankind is restored! 
Then we need to teach them to debate what responsibilities people ought to have.
For example, if you have the right to have sex, do you have the responsibility to carry the child to term? If you have the right to free expression, do you have the responsibility to never offend someone’s religious or racial sensitivities? So many debates to be had.
Yeah those sound like great debates. You should start some threads.
I’m not interested in debating them, personally, but others will be. That’s my point.
Kind of a meaningless point. Is your point actually “we can’t discuss any social responsibility/right tradeoffs without discussing all of them”?
No, it isn’t.
nm…
You’re telling me what my point is, after I’ve explained it to you.
Just wanted to make that clearer.
No, I’m not.
I ordered argument, not mere gainsaying.
Yes. Those debates need to be had. But they need to be had - and understood. Because ethically they usually look more like “if you have a right to religion, you have a responsibility that other people have a right to practice their religion.” “If you have a right to free expression, you need to grant it to others - and you and others need to use it responsibly” (No one has a right to sex, unless you include masterbation - because sex as its usually understood, requires two people, which requires consent, and the right to control my own body trumps your right to do anything to my body. And if you have a right to use my body for sex, or procreation, I have the right to use your body for slavery or organ harvesting)
Yes, that’s correct, and I misspoke by shortening my statement too far. I meant “Right to have sex” as in “Right to be able to have sex with a willing partner” which has not always been a universal right even among adults, given the harsh legal and extralegal punishments miscegenation and homosexuality and even some kinds of straight sex were all historically subject to.
Sure, but the analogy seems to be acceptable for this situation. People are concerned about the plaintiff being “harmed” through no fault of her own. So far not a single solution has been offered here that would apply to a courtroom (except the options that the judge provided), even after repeatedly asking for one, so I figured I’d bring it to the real world.
If you want to offer a solution using the actual scenario, be my guest. You could be the first! Otherwise, sucks to be her, she needs a new lawyer.
Delay the case until the mask mandate is over? Still leave the option to replace the lawyer if the plaintiff wants to.
That doesn’t harm the plaintiff?
Up to her how much it harms her.
Up to her how much it harms her to get a new lawyer who will obey the law, too.
Right, but I’m suggesting an option where she can keep the lawyer she wants if she’s willing to accept a delay. Seems a little more fair than throwing it out and forcing it on her.
The transcript (scanned and on Scribd) shows that the judge was pretty damned accommodating already and offered options that would address the complaints that were made. There was also a jury pool waiting to be selected from. It had been a long time since they had jury trials in New York and they were finally getting up and running again and playing catch up. There had already been delays for other reasons and he was ready to move this forward. I’m with the judge on this one.