Jobs

[Piotr]

also, some people are geniuses that keep up on all of the latest debates and have bar graphs sitting in their filing cabinet for information.

I haven't supplied ANY data at all on this debate.  I just said my opinion.  Are you going to ban me for not providing data?  Im sure it hurts whoever is debating socialism (i can't even remember who it was anymore), so someone is getting hurt, and im providing no data.  Just like the person you just banned for a week.

oops, that should say "not all people are geniuses"  My bad.

Then why won't they stop pretending to be knowing alls? I stop them when I know better than them, and in case of .politics., which has been my lifelong hobby of over 20 years, I know a lot.

[Piotr]

Our law is not ideal, it's merely the best.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Our law is not ideal, it's merely the best.

To Piotr-True but it is too vague to be used practically in the real world (IMO).

To Taysby-Piotr is right, you have to agree to the Terms and Conditions when you make an account.

Lastly I don't mind if you ban people for lies ("a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive") but please don't ban people for their opinions or accidentally being misinformed. In the end, its your call but it wouldn't hurt to listen.

[Piotr]

Our law is not ideal, it's merely the best.

True but it is too vague to be used practically in the real world (IMO).

Strongly disagree. All you need to do to kick it off is to apply it as top level law and let the courts do the rest. Bad law will be struck down, good law compatible with the new constitution will hold. Most of the current constitution can be kept as the main commentary. You have to have a plan of what to do with the current enormous bureaucracy, of course. Can be done.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Our law is not ideal, it's merely the best.

True but it is too vague to be used practically in the real world (IMO).

Strongly disagree. All you need to do to kick it off is to apply it as top level law and let the courts do the rest. Bad law will be struck down, good law compatible with the new constitution will hold. Most of the current constitution can be kept as the main commentary. You have to have a plan of what to do with the current enormous bureaucracy, of course. Can be done.

I agree, I was talking about if the Ultimate Law were the only law. If you were to apply it as an international standard (like a UN action) and have it filter all other laws it would work well.

[Piotr]

Oh, ok.  I didn't remember making an account so I forgot about that.  So yes, you can do it, but you shouldn't for people sayin their opinion in an opinion discussion thread.

The guy was banned for spreading quite obvious lie about origins of 2007 financial crisis, not for sayin' their opinion.

[Piotr]

Our law is not ideal, it's merely the best.

True but it is too vague to be used practically in the real world (IMO).

Strongly disagree. All you need to do to kick it off is to apply it as top level law and let the courts do the rest. Bad law will be struck down, good law compatible with the new constitution will hold. Most of the current constitution can be kept as the main commentary. You have to have a plan of what to do with the current enormous bureaucracy, of course. Can be done.

I agree, I was talking about if the Ultimate Law were the only law. If you were to apply it as an international standard (like a UN action) and have it filter all other laws it would work well.

That's the idea.

[Piotr]

I thought he was saying that would be the law.  All other laws would be commentary, b ultimately it is up to the judge.  If I'm wrong, I apologize.

The relationship between our little iMtG law and its commentary is pretty much the same as between US Constitution and the rest of the law.

The same way as current laws are illegal if they are proven to be breaking the constitution, commentary of iMtG Law must be compatible with it.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Never claimed they did not exist, but a lack of regulation exacerbated the situation. There is an excellent documentary called Inside Jobnif you are interested.

He was banned after saying the above quote. The economic collapse was very complex and involved the entire world (called the world's first global slump). It would be impossible to prove or disprove whether "a lack of regulation exacerbated the situation" unless you literally spent decades researching policies and looking at files that many companies already shredded. In the end though, what's done is done. I may have disagreed with you and I still think that in the future you should avoid banning others without a trial where his fate would be decided by a randomly selected jury but its not my call, its yours. Boringanarchy2 will hopefully be back in few days but I think we should put this behind us now, so we can get on with our lives instead of worrying about what has already happened and we can't change.

[Piotr]

Well if there was more regulation (like regulating every tiny little thing) I doubt the crisis would have happened.  There would have been very little growth, America wouldn't be as prosperous (by a lot) but it wouldn't have happened.  The government would have taken over banks, etc. 

We would be like Canada or something.  No economic growth or decay.  And the economy wouldn't be very good in the first place, but there would have been no crash.

Interesting, but I don't think you can say that 'total disaster crisis of communism implemented' is equal to 'crisis would not happened'

[Piotr]

Never claimed they did not exist, but a lack of regulation exacerbated the situation. There is an excellent documentary called Inside Jobnif you are interested.

He was banned after saying the above quote.

And a few others. I've been debating on the internet for a while now and I find it quite easy to recognise certain patterns.

[Piotr]

Hey!  Just switching to communism isn't the same as no financial crash happening. . Regardless if its a better option or not, most likely it would have prevented a crash.

That's like saying 'let's kill him so he is not hungry anymore'

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

That's like saying 'let's kill him so he is not hungry anymore'

/\ Lol, +1.

[Silent1236]

What in the actual .love. happened in this thread?!  That really puts me off, Piotr.  This is also the reason I avoid this part of the forum 😒

[Melek the fire]

I feel like the admin punishes those who oppose his own personal views. You wouldn't see this on the wizards magic forum, or mtg salvation, or tcg player forums. It's sad that it gets to the point people are banned, but thankfully we have many more sites to turn to.