• arymandias@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dear citizen, Please refrain from participating in democracy unless you have the right credentials. Kind regards, The elite

        • Cabrio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          We don’t let the uneducated be surgeons, so why would we ask them how to operate?

          Here’s a better idea, educate people properly.

        • ArcticLynx@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          whether they’re war criminals isn’t a democratic opinion. there are experts that know the laws and check if the president’s actions go against them.

          it’s the same with the vaccine discussion. saying “vaccines make children autistic” has nothing to do with ‘participating in democracy’. the people who are saying this bullshit obviously don’t have the right credentials and therefore can’t make a qualified statement to whether vaccines are safe or not.

          • arymandias@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Following the Nuremberg principals they would actually all be war criminals, but of course those principals only apply if they are convenient. So clearly all these people with credentials are massively hypothetical just like everyone else.

            And for vaccines: almost no one is educated sufficiently in the field of immunology to judge for themselves if the vaccine is safe, so you are always dependent on trust. And if the government has over and over again shown to be completely untrustworthy, by for example starting a war (where more then two hundred thousand people died) based on lies, or bailing out the perpetrators of the biggest financial crisis in living memory, then who can blame them for not trusting the government when it tells them to trust the vaccine. It’s unfortunate but not unexpected.

            • ArcticLynx@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Following the Nuremberg principals they would actually all be war criminals

              ok let’s just say that you know what you’re talking about and that this is true. why would you hold todays presidents accountable according to laws 80 years in the past? like everyone else, the should be convicted according to todays laws, if they broke them.

              almost no one is educated sufficiently in the field of immunology to judge for themselves

              yes, this is why you believe the people who know the science, who studied immunology/law

              you are always dependent on trust. And if the government has over and over again shown to be completely untrustworthy…

              regarding vaccines you don’t have to trust the government, you have to trust the scientists. just because the government (who isn’t trustworthy) trusts them too, doesn’t mean they’re suddenly wrong. as for the war criminal debate this means that if the government says that the presidents aren’t war criminals, you don’t have to believe them. you have to believe the experts who studied law on whether the presidents did something illegal or not.


              all I’m saying is that it isn’t an opinion whether someone is a criminal, there are qualified experts who can evaluate this. if you’re not one of those you can’t make a qualified statement on this and if you do you can be called out for it.

              I need you to understand that if I call someone out for making an unqualified statement on a legal topic that doesn’t mean that I don’t want people to ‘participate in democracy unless they have the right credentials’. it means that I don’t want people to make statements on legal topics unless they have the right credentials.

              • arymandias@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                A crime is an act against the law, the law is determined by the will of the people (or at minimum it should), so yeah criminality is subject to opinion. You can be pedantic about whether something is a crime if the current laws don’t match your opinion. But again Nuremberg shows that with a sufficiently large crime the chronology of something becoming a law and the moment a crime was committed is not necessarily important. And at least for the Iraq war I would argue this is very much up for debate.

                • ArcticLynx@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  the law is determined by the will of the people […] so yeah criminality is subject to opinion

                  this doesn’t matter. a judge only cares about somebody’s actions and what the law says about these actions. jurisprudence isn’t democracy. if the majority of people thinks that someone is guilty it doesn’t matter. what matters is if they violated laws and that can only be evaluated by a professional. so if the majority of people thinks that Bush for example is a war criminal it doesn’t matter if he didn’t violate any laws. of course this goes the other way around too: if 99% of people think that he isn’t a criminal, but he violated laws, he is guilty. the majority of people can’t decide whether someone is guilty or not.

                  of course the majority of people votes the government which passes laws to it’s voter’s liking, so there’s a big intersection between existing laws and the will of the many. but ultimately the judge doesn’t care about all of this. for them it’s simply “does action violate law?”. outside of this question nothing matters.