• 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 1st, 2023

help-circle

  • CuriousRefugee@lemmy.mltoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWhat's a weird saying?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    No, no, it was originally “Taking God’s name in vein,” as saying the name of God out loud would allow Him into your blood. If you say the name of God, you allow him to inhabit your blood, gain your power, and become even more mighty. The ancient Hebrews feared God gaining too much power, as He would be able to destroy the world. Then Christians figured out that if they took Communion and instead drank the blood of Christ, they could reverse the Hebrew God’s power and slowly increase their own until they could ascend to the heavens and do battle with the Almighty, empowered by His blood in their veins, rather than weakened by taking His name in vein. In this seventeen-part essay, I will describe how we can defeat God by


  • Handmade puzzles, i.e., puzzles crafted intentionally by a real person almost never require guessing. However, a lot of “extreme” difficulty puzzles (or similar difficulty terms) in apps, newspapers, puzzle books, etc. are not handmade by a real person, but computer generated. There’s probably a logic chain that’s like 15 steps long that humans couldn’t reasonably follow, but a guess is likely faster and more enjoyable.

    Someone else recommended Cracking the Cryptic on YouTube, which is a great source - the daily puzzles are nice because you can follow along in the video if you’re stuck, but they also have lots of apps with Sudokus that never require guessing. Another good source is Logic Masters Germany, which has lots of handmade Sudoku and other puzzles: https://logic-masters.de/



  • Okay, that’s fair. I was thinking more along the lines of when the law is questionable, not patently unjust , as you put it.

    And Jim Crow laws are a good example, as are sodomy laws that essentially outlawed gay relationships for a long time in many states (struck down by Lawrence v. Texas, but not until 2003!). Usually when people think of jury nullification (outside of the more recent obvious case), they’re thinking along the lines of drug laws, which are often grey. Both of those examples probably DO warrant nullification.

    That being said, I think it’s unlikely that a case which can get 9 12 jurors to oppose it based on an unjust law would occur in a state where that law exists. Those sodomy laws I referenced were mostly only present in conservative states by 2003. However, federal laws might be more susceptible, as a state that’s the opposite political ideology of the current US government could have a jury like that.

    But I’ll concede the point that atrociously immoral or unjust laws could and should be targets for jury nullification. It’s a good addition.


  • This is really important. You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.

    In addition, sentencing is (usually) separate from conviction and is the judge’s decision, although a jury can recommend a sentence. If someone is found guilty of theft for stealing a loaf of bread, they’re not going to get 20 years in jail except in musicals.

    IMO, nullification should be used as an absolute last resort. Have a sympathetic defendant accused of second degree murder? Knock it down to a lower-level manslaughter and find them guilty. The sentencing of that might have a low maximum.

    There are only a few rare problems that actually need nullification. It (generally) shouldn’t just be used for laws that you disagree with. One such problem is mandatory sentencing minimums. If someone steals that load of bread and they’ve already been convicted twice for theft or other crimes, they may be subject to things like 3-strike laws and get a sentence that is WAY more than they deserve, and the judge can’t do anything about it. The judge might feel that they deserve to give only 20 hours of community service as a sentence, but they legally have to sentence the convicted to 6 months in prison. Nullification is probably warranted there. Someone found with 1.25 ounces of marijuana in a state where only 1 ounce is legal, so they get charged with a drug distribution felony? And the judge/prosecutor refuses to lower the charge? Maybe find them not guilty. But it should be the last resort, not the first option.




  • A garlic press - saves so much time and effort over mincing garlic with a knife because I’m not a pro chef, and can be used in about 95% of situations where you need garlic. I don’t use it when I want the garlic texture, but otherwise I just adjust the amount or the cooking time versus minced garlic. There’s some hate floating around from professional chefs, but I bought one a few years ago to try it and haven’t looked back.