Rules under Work - page 17
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
1. Comment on the highlighted: with this approach, you have a great opportunity to reflect on the postulate "Every judge has the right to be wrong". And then to apply this postulate to your own life experience.
And if to take into consideration that each of us periodically plays the role of a judge while solving our own questions, you have a great opportunity to convince yourself that in "my case" (i.e. in yours) the postulate looks absurd :) Or almost absurd :)
I pondered. I did not find my postulate absurd. All errors have to be corrected later.
I recommend you to watch it - http://www.kinopoisk.ru/level/1/film/450623/ (film based on real events).
* * *
A judge should understand:
1. The problem of justice he is solving is unsolvable.
2 He must do his best to solve it as fairly as possible, but he must realise that he cannot solve it correctly.
3. A judge must not indulge his right to err, but must comply with points 1 and 2.
(A stalker's rule as interpreted for judges).
Integer:
Comment on the highlighted: with this approach, you have a great opportunity to reflect on the postulate "Every judge has the right to make a mistake". And then apply this postulate to your own life experience.
And if you take into consideration that each of us periodically plays the role of judge when we solve our own questions, you will get a good chance to see that in "my case" (I mean in yours), the postulate looks absurd :) Or nearly absurd :)
I pondered. I did not find my postulate absurd. All errors have to be corrected later.
Well, as far as I understood from your answer, the logical conjunction "Every judge has the right to err" && "Everyone has the right to correct his error" is not particularly objectionable (in some cases it may be a duty to correct the error, but that is not the point). Now we apply this logical conjunction to the original thesis and obtain: "Everyone has the right to be wrong" && "Everyone has the right to get rid of wrongs". Is the absurdity still observed? :)
As for the "movie" - it's just zombification, albeit "based on real events". If you want real "reality" - look at what percentage of court decisions are overturned, by whom (the judge himself or a higher authority) and whether judges bear any negative consequences for their mistakes.
1. Well, as far as I understood from the answer, the logical conjunction "Every judge has the right to a mistake" && "Everyone has the right to correct his mistake" is not particularly objectionable (in some cases it may be a duty to correct the mistake, but that is not the point). Now we apply this logical conjunction to the original thesis and obtain: "Everyone has the right to be wrong" && "Everyone has the right to get rid of wrongs". Is the absurdity still observed? :)
2. As for the "movie" - it's just zombification, albeit "based on real events".
3. if you want real "reality" - look at the percentage of court decisions that are overturned, by whom (the judge himself or a higher authority) and whether judges bear any negative consequences for their mistakes.
1. As before. You have the right to walk in a minefield, it doesn't say it is forbidden, it just says "mined" - walk, you have the right to do so, walking in a minefield is not forbidden. Isn't it absurd?
2. Whether you are zombified or not depends on your perception, you can still learn from experience and learn. Either way, facts remain facts.
3. The reference to that film is to the real reality, there are many examples to cite, theirs as well as ours. The overall statistics of that guy are hardly comforting.
It is not absurd to argue about the right to the best rather than the worst, because no one wants the worst.
Battle of the Bulldogs - the spring version :D
Integer:
Well, as far as I understood from the answer, the logical conjunction "Every judge has the right to make a mistake" && "Everyone has the right to correct his mistake" is not particularly objectionable (in some cases it may be a duty to correct the mistake, but that is not the point). Now we apply this logical conjunction to the original thesis and obtain: "Everyone has the right to be wrong" && "Everyone has the right to get rid of wrongs". Is the absurdity still observed? :)
1. As before. You have the right to walk in a minefield, it doesn't say it's forbidden, it just says "mined" - walk, you have the right to do so, walking in a minefield is not forbidden. Isn't that absurd?
OK, let's recap. In your opinion:
- The logical conjunction "Every judge has the right to err" && "Everyone has the right to correct his mistake" is not absurd;
- The logical conjunction ""Everyone has the right to err" && "Everyone has the right to get rid of his erroneousness" is absurd.
Full stop. I don't argue, one can live with that logic as well :)
...Given that the actual statistics of judicial errors (as actual evidence of the existence of an "absurd" "right to be wrong") interests you very little, the polemic comes smoothly to its logical (in the generally accepted context) conclusion.
Battle of the Bulldogs - the spring version :D
OK, let's recap. In your opinion:
1. - The logical conjunction "Every judge has the right to err" && "Everyone has the right to correct his mistake" is not absurd;
2. - The logical conjunction ""Everyone has the right to err" && "Everyone has the right to get rid of his erroneousness" is absurd.
Full stop. I don't argue, one can live with that logic as well :)
...Given that the actual statistics of judges' errors (as a factual confirmation of the existence of an "absurd" "right to be wrong") interests you little, the polemic comes smoothly to its logical (in the generally accepted context) conclusion.
The usual cry here is "Judge out!". The reasoning on the right to error and wrong is absurd. If a judge makes mistakes, he is not given the right to do so, but the grace to do so.
Statistics, pay attention in these statistics, if there is this information, whose cases are reviewed, which social categories - those who have hired an advocate, who have relatives who can afford it, the rest - the case will move just in time for the completion of the sentence.
The usual cry here is "Soap the judge! The reasoning on the right to err and mistake is absurd. If a judge makes mistakes, he is not given the right, but the grace to do so.
Statistics, pay attention in these statistics, if there is this information, whose cases are reviewed, which social categories - those who have hired an advocate, who have relatives who can afford it, the rest - the case will move just in time for the end of the sentence.
We have all already recognized the obvious - it happened when Mischek was politely given an "Fail" in law. Therefore the phrase "...the question of unclear rights of unclear what" should be seen as the phrase "the question of Mischek 's unclear rights of unclear Mischek on what". No offence - just a simple statement of fact.
Well, that's probably an option too. To turn the conversation to RIGHT, to the problems of Somali pirates or to the difficulties of breeding rabbits in the polar regions.
The main thing is not to answer on the merits and give out failures.
Not a single customer wrote in the thread that he needs a tick, but it does not bother me, as well as the fact that most programmers who write
Most programmers write open source code and don't care about this checkbox.
And most importantly some strange problems with specificity. As soon as you ask "How many times two is two",
they either "look above" even though there's nothing above, or they fail by right. But not the answer.