On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:47:49 +0900, Eric Takabayashi
<etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:

>> No, it is not nor do I consider myself ignorant.

>I know I am ignorant and will never know or understand all that I should. Eighteen years ago I
>was so ignorant I was not even aware of my ignorance, as are many Japanese I meet who
>don't/can't/refuse to think outside their own existence or simply accept what their society has
>told them without much critical thought. Sure they can tell me guns/nukes/war are bad (which I
>agree with in theory), but can't really explain why others would ever find fit to disagree or
>why they continue to exist.

Ignorance is a choice one makes. Contrast this to uneducated. We can
all learn things.

>> It is based on the fact that the system is an excellent one and by far the best one on
>> Earth.

>Have you ever considered why UN study groups or Amnesty International usually gives top honors
>to European governments or systems? Or it is purely political that the US is not on top?

Since when has the UN been pro-American? Amnesty International,
despite their claims of non-affiliation to any nation or government
was founded in the UK.

>> I did comment on it. I said I thought it was preposterous and
>> bordering on a police state in separate comments.

>Taking practically all imaginable precautions to avoid mistaken or false accusation and
>punishment, with almost complete disregard for the rights or feelings of victims of actual
>crime, is bordering on a police state?

Allowing the police to issue justice (especially secret police) is a
police state.

>Damn. I'm criticized for allegedly focusing only on punishing people for crime, even if they are
>innocent, and I'm criticized for trying to avoid what would be basically 100% of false or
>mistaken accusation and punishment, and legal corruption, even at the cost of an increase in
>criminals who were not punished, a la "n" approaches infinity.

Your goals are not what I criticize but rather your plans to achieve
them.

>> Another reason I didn't address it directly was that I thought you were being
>> completely satirical.

>Well, no, that particularly system is not something I would ever want. But those who are so
>concerned for preventing false or mistaken accusation or punishment might. I am sure that those
>at accused.com would like to restrict the ability of people to make unsubstantiated claims of
>rape or abuse (despite some being factual) or have the physical evidence to protect themselves
>and their clients.

They wouldn't want the loss of rights they would they get as a result.
For my part I did say I believe that much more severe CRIMINAL
penalties for those who can be proven to have brought false claims
would be an excellent deterrent.

>> I will read it again as a courtesy without the taint of perceived
>> satire.

>I am quite serious, because until God acts on a real time basis to personally guide, protect,
>judge and punish as opposed to waiting until death or final judgment, OR humans live and judge
>perfectly on their own, such human efforts are the best we will have to know what really
>happens.

Well if you happen to believe in God then you might believe that
he/she does his own reckoning for all crimes committed down here
eventually. 

I'm not a particularly religious person.

>> This isn't EricWorld

>Since people do not understand what I have in mind, you should say this world is not a utopia.

The description of Ericworld I've heard thus far is a description of
utopia. If that's a lack of understanding you'll just have to explain
it better.

>No, this legal system is your imperfect reality, which you cannot perceive a need to improve.

I concede a need for the people that use the system to improve. No
system can be perfect.