cm2.liecourt.com - User contributions [en]

Verdict:AffHfj3hjHaf6hf0ch0h/5

2022-11-16T17:27:46Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Role=Judge
|Workflow=Workflow/187
|Case ID=AffHfj3hjHaf6hf0ch0h
|User=User:Rht5
|Truth=no
|Truth percentage=99
|Truth text=No self respecting scientists would pretend to know enough to know how to answer this question but to keep looking for life.
|Whole truth=no
|Whole truth percentage=99
|Whole truth text=We don't even know the limits of our knowing or being able to speculate on this question. The Drake equation proves that guesses of years ago were completely wrong in light of current knowledge...and that was only 60 years ago.
|Nothing But the truth=no
|Nothing But the truth percentage=80
|Nothing But the truth text=The notion of "life" is too narrowly defined. "Life" forms could exist that are utterly beyond our comprehension, and may easily avoid the Great Filter.
|Deceit=While we have some assurance that the natural laws we see are throughout the observable universe, we have no idea how they work at levels of intelligence life what ever that is.
|Deceit percentage=99
|Deceit text=-
|Deceit intended=yes
|Deceit intended percentage=99
|Deceit intended text=If any person who is actually a scientist believe in any of the proposed equations, he is intentionally lyng.
|Motivation=The motivation if somebody does an equation is not science but fame.
|Motivation percentage=75
|Motivation text=-
|Social acceptability=Unacceptable
|Social acceptability percentage=50
|Social acceptability text=We should be truthful and nevertheless know we need to be looking for intelligent life in order to know if it exists, and that is the ONLY way.
|Label=This claim does not take into account unexamined underlying assumptions.
|Label percentage=100
}}

Verdict:AffHfj3hjHaf6hf0ch0h/5

2022-11-16T17:21:30Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Case ID=AffHfj3hjHaf6hf0ch0h
|Workflow=Workflow/187
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Judge
|Participant=Participant/1668618055
}}

Workflow/187

2022-11-16T17:06:06Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Needs jurors
|Filed by=User:Frank
|Case ID=AffHfj3hjHaf6hf0ch0h
|Lie=Intelligent Life Is Self Destructive
|Topic=Scientific Lie
|Accusation=According to the probabilistic Drake Equation (see below), advanced intelligent life has probably developed many times in the universe. For example, if the odds of an advanced civilization developing on a habitable planet are one in a trillion, then at least 10 billion such civilizations should have occurred.

We are left with a quandary. To restate the Fermi Paradox, where are they? Why have we not encountered them?

Researchers at NASA's JPL have written a paper (in the peer review process) that states that such civilizations have most likely been "filtered" out, the result of five factors: 1) Diseases/pandemics; 2) Wars (probably nuclear); 3) Depletion of resources/self-induced climate change; 4) Natural catastrophe, i.e., astroids or volcanoes; 5) Destruction by rogue Artificial Intelligence.

The researchers call this phenomenon the Great Filter, and claim that the odds of surviving long enough to communicate with others are astonishingly small. What's more, given the vastness of the cosmos, even if a civilization did survive the Great Filter, the likelihood of an encounter between us and them practically nil.

Please refer to the articles and the researchers' paper, below:

1) https://www.huffpost.com/entry/great-filter-theory-intelligent-life-extinction-nasa_n_636fee4ce4b0ca9acf253784

2) https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1350/are-we-alone-in-the-universe-revisiting-the-drake-equation/

3) https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2210/2210.10582.pdf

4) Here is a discussion about the Drake Equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

5) N =R∗ ×fp ×ne ×fl ×fi ×fc ×L. (1)

• N is the number of currently active, communicative civilizations in our galaxy.
• R∗ is the rate at which stars form in our galaxy.
• fp is the fraction of stars with planets.
• ne is the number of planets that can potentially host life, per star that has planets.
• fl is the fraction of the above that actually do develop life of any kind.
• fi is the fraction of the above that develop intelligent life.
• fc is the fraction of the above that develop the capacity for interstellar communication.
• L is the length of time that such communicative civilizations are active.

Note that “fraction of the above” means that all the previous conditions have been satisfied. For example, when we consider fc we assume that intelligent life has already developed.
|Locations=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/great-filter-theory-intelligent-life-extinction-nasa_n_636fee4ce4b0ca9acf253784
|Markup=<b>All intelligent life has likely destroyed itself before reaching a sophisticated enough point in its evolution to support an encounter with our civilization.</b>
|uuid=5df59af1-834b-4ee3-aa33-b77192896f9f
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Rht5
|Random juror=User:Armar,User:Bas,User:Justin
|Juror amount=5
}}

Case/AffHfj3hjHaf6hf0ch0h

2022-11-16T17:06:05Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Suit
|Title=Intelligent Life Is Self Destructive
|Case ID=AffHfj3hjHaf6hf0ch0h
|Workflow=Workflow/187
|vbvbv=You cannot manage tokens!
}}

Workflow/187

2022-11-16T17:00:58Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Judge accepted
|Filed by=User:Frank
|Case ID=AffHfj3hjHaf6hf0ch0h
|Lie=Intelligent Life Is Self Destructive
|Topic=Scientific Lie
|Accusation=According to the probabilistic Drake Equation (see below), advanced intelligent life has probably developed many times in the universe. For example, if the odds of an advanced civilization developing on a habitable planet are one in a trillion, then at least 10 billion such civilizations should have occurred.

We are left with a quandary. To restate the Fermi Paradox, where are they? Why have we not encountered them?

Researchers at NASA's JPL have written a paper (in the peer review process) that states that such civilizations have most likely been "filtered" out, the result of five factors: 1) Diseases/pandemics; 2) Wars (probably nuclear); 3) Depletion of resources/self-induced climate change; 4) Natural catastrophe, i.e., astroids or volcanoes; 5) Destruction by rogue Artificial Intelligence.

The researchers call this phenomenon the Great Filter, and claim that the odds of surviving long enough to communicate with others are astonishingly small. What's more, given the vastness of the cosmos, even if a civilization did survive the Great Filter, the likelihood of an encounter between us and them practically nil.

Please refer to the articles and the researchers' paper, below:

1) https://www.huffpost.com/entry/great-filter-theory-intelligent-life-extinction-nasa_n_636fee4ce4b0ca9acf253784

2) https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1350/are-we-alone-in-the-universe-revisiting-the-drake-equation/

3) https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2210/2210.10582.pdf

4) Here is a discussion about the Drake Equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

5) N =R∗ ×fp ×ne ×fl ×fi ×fc ×L. (1)

• N is the number of currently active, communicative civilizations in our galaxy.
• R∗ is the rate at which stars form in our galaxy.
• fp is the fraction of stars with planets.
• ne is the number of planets that can potentially host life, per star that has planets.
• fl is the fraction of the above that actually do develop life of any kind.
• fi is the fraction of the above that develop intelligent life.
• fc is the fraction of the above that develop the capacity for interstellar communication.
• L is the length of time that such communicative civilizations are active.

Note that “fraction of the above” means that all the previous conditions have been satisfied. For example, when we consider fc we assume that intelligent life has already developed.
|Locations=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/great-filter-theory-intelligent-life-extinction-nasa_n_636fee4ce4b0ca9acf253784
|Markup=<b>All intelligent life has likely destroyed itself before reaching a sophisticated enough point in its evolution to support an encounter with our civilization.</b>
|uuid=5df59af1-834b-4ee3-aa33-b77192896f9f
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Rht5
}}

Participant/1668618055

2022-11-16T17:00:56Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Participant
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Judge
|Case ID=AffHfj3hjHaf6hf0ch0h
|Workflow=Workflow/187
}}

Workflow/186

2022-11-09T17:25:49Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Settled
|Filed by=User:Frank
|Case ID=AffGac9adEaf6ga3iaDe
|Lie=Aging Leaders Hurt America
|Topic=Not a lie!
|Accusation=America’s leadership class is increasingly older, with many politicians seeking election well beyond the time that most retire. But what if the concern over a longtime politician’s age has less to do with fear that the candidate might die or become incapacitated — and more to do with whether trying to snag yet another term at an age when almost everyone else is retired is just plain arrogant and greedy?

Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley makes a good test of that question — a test that merits attention from elected officials across this geriatric-run country..

Unlike Senate colleagues such as California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, Grassley has never been trailed by reports that he’s losing his marbles. Unlike a whole slew of other senators — including much younger pols like 50-year-old New Mexico Democrat Ben Ray Luján, who suffered a stroke — he hasn’t missed significant chunks of time due to serious health issues. His ad touts his best-in-the-Senate attendance record.

And yet a poll published this week that has shocked political pros in the state suggests voters have serious qualms about Grassley’s age. The survey, by the veteran Iowa polling firm Selzer & Co., reported that Grassley was running only 3 points ahead of his Democratic challenger, Mike Franken. Iowa’s Republican governor, meanwhile, was leading her race by 17 points, according to the survey, conducted with the Des Moines Register.

Despite months of Grassley-the-pushup-pro messaging, some 60 percent of respondents, including more than a third of Republicans, told pollsters that they thought age was a concern.

The question that ought to occupy the minds of people like the incumbent president of the United States (who turns 80 this fall), his most likely 2024 challenger (now 76), the Democratic triumvirate atop the House of Representatives (82, 83 and 82) and maybe the entire Senate (the oldest in American history) is: What kind of concern? If nobody is challenging the notion that Grassley is physically and mentally up to the job, shouldn’t everything be fine?

Not for everybody.

From NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/us/politics/youth-voters-midterms-polling.html

Alexandra Chadwick went to the polls in 2020 with the single goal of ousting Donald J. Trump. A 22-year-old first-time voter, she saw Joseph R. Biden Jr. as more of a safeguard than an inspiring political figure, someone who could stave off threats to abortion access, gun control and climate policy.

Two years later, as the Supreme Court has eroded federal protections on all three, Ms. Chadwick now sees President Biden and other Democratic leaders as lacking both the imagination and willpower to fight back. She points to a generational gap — one she once overlooked but now seems cavernous.

“How are you going to accurately lead your country if your mind is still stuck 50, 60 or 70 years ago?” Ms. Chadwick, a customer service representative in Rialto, Calif., said of the many septuagenarian leaders at the helm of her party. “It’s not the same, and people aren’t the same, and your old ideas aren’t going to work as well anymore.”
|Locations=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/21/voters-worried-chuck-grassley-age-00062805
|Markup=<i>The problem of America’s gerontocracy is not one of infirm or senescent leadership, but one of an increasingly impenetrable elite with entrenched habits and jobs that are entitlements, who are surrounded by staff who shield them from the real world.</i>
|uuid=38e7f993-9c00-4825-ae9b-1c91962f59d6
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Rht5
|Random juror=done
|Juror amount=5
|Jurors=User:Bas,User:Justin, User:Armar
}}

Verdict:AffGac9adEaf6ga3iaDe/5

2022-11-09T17:25:17Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Role=Judge
|Workflow=Workflow/186
|Case ID=AffGac9adEaf6ga3iaDe
|User=User:Rht5
|Truth=yes
|Truth percentage=70
|Truth text=-
|Whole truth=no
|Whole truth percentage=50
|Whole truth text=Other problems also exist. and claims like this can be counterproductive and create an environment that can discourage younger citizens's participation. The statement also ignores or minimizes the fact that experience gained with age may be very helpful.
|Nothing But the truth=no
|Nothing But the truth percentage=50
|Nothing But the truth text=Some younger politicians are also guilty of entrenched habits and have jobs that have become entitlements.
|Deceit=There may not be a deceit. but If there is one. it lies in discouraging a discussion of detrimental factors other than a possible constricted world-view. It also completely ignores the fact that age-related experience may be very useful in dealing with issues.
|Deceit percentage=50
|Deceit text=While our aging leadership does seem somewhat out of touch. younger leaders throughout the world are also experiencing difficulties.
|Deceit intended=no
|Deceit intended percentage=51
|Deceit intended text=There may be no deceit.
|Motivation=Younger politicians may make this claim to gain an electoral advantage. even if it is not 100% true.
|Motivation percentage=50
|Motivation text=I think the motivation behind this is the writers wanted to tell a story that sounded good even though it was not particularly accurate.
|Social acceptability=Acceptable
|Social acceptability percentage=50
|Social acceptability text=If this claim makes older politicians more aware of age-related issues that could possibly be influencing them. then the claim is acceptable. even though it may not be 100% true.
|Label=This claim may ignore or minimize many other factors.
|Label percentage=70
}}

Verdict:AffGac9adEaf6ga3iaDe/5

2022-11-09T17:21:10Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Case ID=AffGac9adEaf6ga3iaDe
|Workflow=Workflow/186
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Judge
|Participant=Participant/1668013649
}}

Workflow/186

2022-11-09T17:09:23Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Needs jurors
|Filed by=User:Frank
|Case ID=AffGac9adEaf6ga3iaDe
|Lie=Aging Leaders Hurt America
|Topic=Not a lie!
|Accusation=America’s leadership class is increasingly older, with many politicians seeking election well beyond the time that most retire. But what if the concern over a longtime politician’s age has less to do with fear that the candidate might die or become incapacitated — and more to do with whether trying to snag yet another term at an age when almost everyone else is retired is just plain arrogant and greedy?

Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley makes a good test of that question — a test that merits attention from elected officials across this geriatric-run country..

Unlike Senate colleagues such as California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, Grassley has never been trailed by reports that he’s losing his marbles. Unlike a whole slew of other senators — including much younger pols like 50-year-old New Mexico Democrat Ben Ray Luján, who suffered a stroke — he hasn’t missed significant chunks of time due to serious health issues. His ad touts his best-in-the-Senate attendance record.

And yet a poll published this week that has shocked political pros in the state suggests voters have serious qualms about Grassley’s age. The survey, by the veteran Iowa polling firm Selzer & Co., reported that Grassley was running only 3 points ahead of his Democratic challenger, Mike Franken. Iowa’s Republican governor, meanwhile, was leading her race by 17 points, according to the survey, conducted with the Des Moines Register.

Despite months of Grassley-the-pushup-pro messaging, some 60 percent of respondents, including more than a third of Republicans, told pollsters that they thought age was a concern.

The question that ought to occupy the minds of people like the incumbent president of the United States (who turns 80 this fall), his most likely 2024 challenger (now 76), the Democratic triumvirate atop the House of Representatives (82, 83 and 82) and maybe the entire Senate (the oldest in American history) is: What kind of concern? If nobody is challenging the notion that Grassley is physically and mentally up to the job, shouldn’t everything be fine?

Not for everybody.

From NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/us/politics/youth-voters-midterms-polling.html

Alexandra Chadwick went to the polls in 2020 with the single goal of ousting Donald J. Trump. A 22-year-old first-time voter, she saw Joseph R. Biden Jr. as more of a safeguard than an inspiring political figure, someone who could stave off threats to abortion access, gun control and climate policy.

Two years later, as the Supreme Court has eroded federal protections on all three, Ms. Chadwick now sees President Biden and other Democratic leaders as lacking both the imagination and willpower to fight back. She points to a generational gap — one she once overlooked but now seems cavernous.

“How are you going to accurately lead your country if your mind is still stuck 50, 60 or 70 years ago?” Ms. Chadwick, a customer service representative in Rialto, Calif., said of the many septuagenarian leaders at the helm of her party. “It’s not the same, and people aren’t the same, and your old ideas aren’t going to work as well anymore.”
|Locations=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/21/voters-worried-chuck-grassley-age-00062805
|Markup=<i>The problem of America’s gerontocracy is not one of infirm or senescent leadership, but one of an increasingly impenetrable elite with entrenched habits and jobs that are entitlements, who are surrounded by staff who shield them from the real world.</i>
|uuid=38e7f993-9c00-4825-ae9b-1c91962f59d6
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Rht5
|Random juror=User:Armar,User:Bas,User:Justin
|Juror amount=5
}}

Case/AffGac9adEaf6ga3iaDe

2022-11-09T17:09:22Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Suit
|Title=Aging Leaders Hurt America
|Case ID=AffGac9adEaf6ga3iaDe
|Workflow=Workflow/186
|vbvbv=You cannot manage tokens!
}}

Workflow/186

2022-11-09T17:07:31Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Judge accepted
|Filed by=User:Frank
|Case ID=AffGac9adEaf6ga3iaDe
|Lie=Aging Leaders Hurt America
|Topic=Not a lie!
|Accusation=America’s leadership class is increasingly older, with many politicians seeking election well beyond the time that most retire. But what if the concern over a longtime politician’s age has less to do with fear that the candidate might die or become incapacitated — and more to do with whether trying to snag yet another term at an age when almost everyone else is retired is just plain arrogant and greedy?

Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley makes a good test of that question — a test that merits attention from elected officials across this geriatric-run country..

Unlike Senate colleagues such as California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, Grassley has never been trailed by reports that he’s losing his marbles. Unlike a whole slew of other senators — including much younger pols like 50-year-old New Mexico Democrat Ben Ray Luján, who suffered a stroke — he hasn’t missed significant chunks of time due to serious health issues. His ad touts his best-in-the-Senate attendance record.

And yet a poll published this week that has shocked political pros in the state suggests voters have serious qualms about Grassley’s age. The survey, by the veteran Iowa polling firm Selzer & Co., reported that Grassley was running only 3 points ahead of his Democratic challenger, Mike Franken. Iowa’s Republican governor, meanwhile, was leading her race by 17 points, according to the survey, conducted with the Des Moines Register.

Despite months of Grassley-the-pushup-pro messaging, some 60 percent of respondents, including more than a third of Republicans, told pollsters that they thought age was a concern.

The question that ought to occupy the minds of people like the incumbent president of the United States (who turns 80 this fall), his most likely 2024 challenger (now 76), the Democratic triumvirate atop the House of Representatives (82, 83 and 82) and maybe the entire Senate (the oldest in American history) is: What kind of concern? If nobody is challenging the notion that Grassley is physically and mentally up to the job, shouldn’t everything be fine?

Not for everybody.

From NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/us/politics/youth-voters-midterms-polling.html

Alexandra Chadwick went to the polls in 2020 with the single goal of ousting Donald J. Trump. A 22-year-old first-time voter, she saw Joseph R. Biden Jr. as more of a safeguard than an inspiring political figure, someone who could stave off threats to abortion access, gun control and climate policy.

Two years later, as the Supreme Court has eroded federal protections on all three, Ms. Chadwick now sees President Biden and other Democratic leaders as lacking both the imagination and willpower to fight back. She points to a generational gap — one she once overlooked but now seems cavernous.

“How are you going to accurately lead your country if your mind is still stuck 50, 60 or 70 years ago?” Ms. Chadwick, a customer service representative in Rialto, Calif., said of the many septuagenarian leaders at the helm of her party. “It’s not the same, and people aren’t the same, and your old ideas aren’t going to work as well anymore.”
|Locations=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/21/voters-worried-chuck-grassley-age-00062805
|Markup=<i>The problem of America’s gerontocracy is not one of infirm or senescent leadership, but one of an increasingly impenetrable elite with entrenched habits and jobs that are entitlements, who are surrounded by staff who shield them from the real world.</i>
|uuid=38e7f993-9c00-4825-ae9b-1c91962f59d6
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Rht5
}}

Participant/1668013649

2022-11-09T17:07:30Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Participant
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Judge
|Case ID=AffGac9adEaf6ga3iaDe
|Workflow=Workflow/186
}}

Workflow/185

2022-10-26T16:33:26Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Settled
|Filed by=User:Admin
|Case ID=Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f
|Lie=Apple doesn't want to be forced to use usb-c
|Accusation=The EU has forced apple to use USB type c on their next devices. This will allow people to use one cable to charge all their new devices, but apple isn't happy with this. Greg Joswiak said this mandatory standard hinders innovation.
|Locations=https://www.macrumors.com/2022/10/26/craig-joz-wsj-event/
|Markup=<i>A mandatory standard hinders innovation.</i>
|uuid=a469f252-5685-4e24-bb9b-3a43a22e3961
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Rht5
|Juror amount=5
|Random juror=done
|Jurors=User:Frank, User:Justin
}}

Verdict:Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f/5

2022-10-26T16:33:11Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Role=Judge
|Workflow=Workflow/185
|Case ID=Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f
|User=User:Rht5
|Truth=yes
|Truth percentage=84
|Truth text=Companies don't have the same incentives to invest in new technology because the standard is mandatory and everyone uses it.
|Whole truth=no
|Whole truth percentage=95
|Whole truth text=It is important to note that maybe innovation isn't always the most important. By switching to usb-c people will need fewer cables and will have fewer cables to throw away. Besides. you won't have to carry around a bunch of cables anymore.
|Nothing But the truth=no
|Nothing But the truth percentage=85
|Nothing But the truth text=-
|Deceit=That innovation is the most important thing in this discussion
|Deceit percentage=55
|Deceit text=-
|Deceit intended=yes
|Deceit intended percentage=60
|Deceit intended text=They should know that the reason for the EU to make USB-c mandatory are good for the short term.
|Motivation=Primarily self interest
|Motivation percentage=90
|Motivation text=-
|Social acceptability=Unacceptable
|Social acceptability percentage=55
|Social acceptability text=It would be nice if they had the consumer at first instead of themselves
|Label=Innovation and standardization have an uneasy relationship
|Label percentage=95
}}

Verdict:Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f/5

2022-10-26T16:25:58Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Case ID=Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f
|Workflow=Workflow/185
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Judge
|Participant=Participant/1666800125
}}

Workflow/185

2022-10-26T16:02:24Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Needs jurors
|Filed by=User:Admin
|Case ID=Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f
|Lie=Apple doesn't want to be forced to use usb-c
|Accusation=The EU has forced apple to use USB type c on their next devices. This will allow people to use one cable to charge all their new devices, but apple isn't happy with this. Greg Joswiak said this mandatory standard hinders innovation.
|Locations=https://www.macrumors.com/2022/10/26/craig-joz-wsj-event/
|Markup=<i>A mandatory standard hinders innovation.</i>
|uuid=a469f252-5685-4e24-bb9b-3a43a22e3961
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Rht5
|Juror amount=5
}}

Case/Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f

2022-10-26T16:02:23Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Suit
|Title=Apple doesn't want to be forced to use usb-c
|Case ID=Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f
|Workflow=Workflow/185
|vbvbv=You cannot manage tokens!
}}

Workflow/185

2022-10-26T16:02:07Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Judge accepted
|Filed by=User:Admin
|Case ID=Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f
|Lie=Apple doesn't want to be forced to use usb-c
|Accusation=The EU has forced apple to use USB type c on their next devices. This will allow people to use one cable to charge all their new devices, but apple isn't happy with this. Greg Joswiak said this mandatory standard hinders innovation.
|Locations=https://www.macrumors.com/2022/10/26/craig-joz-wsj-event/
|Markup=<i>A mandatory standard hinders innovation.</i>
|uuid=a469f252-5685-4e24-bb9b-3a43a22e3961
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Rht5
}}

Participant/1666800125

2022-10-26T16:02:06Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Participant
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Judge
|Case ID=Aff6giHjc6af6fg9hj3f
|Workflow=Workflow/185
}}

Verdict:Aff6ahBhh9af6faHbhHi/4

2022-10-19T16:18:07Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Role=Juror
|Workflow=Workflow/183
|Case ID=Aff6ahBhh9af6faHbhHi
|User=User:Rht5
|Name=Juror 4
|Truth=no
|Truth percentage=100
|Truth text=Not the way Mastriani means it.
|Whole truth=no
|Whole truth percentage=100
|Whole truth text=He needed to say what that meant to him.
|Nothing But the truth=no
|Nothing But the truth percentage=100
|Deceit=That his interpretation of Christian is democratic.
|Deceit percentage=80
|Deceit text=
|Deceit intended=yes
|Deceit intended percentage=100
|Motivation=The get the ultra right and Eucumentical Christians to vote for him and others not to know what he mean
|Motivation percentage=100
|Motivation text=
|Social acceptability=Unacceptable
|Social acceptability percentage=100
|Social acceptability text=He is an autocrat lying with what sounds like the truth
|Label=This is an autocrating lying with what sounds like the truth
|Label percentage=100
}}

Verdict:Aff6ahBhh9af6faHbhHi/4

2022-10-19T16:12:05Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Case ID=Aff6ahBhh9af6faHbhHi
|Workflow=Workflow/183
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Juror
|Name=Juror 4
|Participant=Participant/1666195912
}}

Workflow/183

2022-10-19T16:11:54Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Needs jurors
|Filed by=User:Frank
|Case ID=Aff6ahBhh9af6faHbhHi
|Lie=The US is a Christian Nation
|Topic=Factual lie that is the truth
|Accusation=Politico reports that Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, has argued that America is a Christian nation and that the separation of church and state is a “myth.” https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/21/most-republicans-support-declaring-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-00057736 The " The Establishment Clause," the first clause in the Bill of Rights, states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
|Locations=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/21/most-republicans-support-declaring-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-00057736
|Markup=<i>Politico reports that Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, has argued that </i><b>America is a Christian nation and that the separation of church and state is a “myth.” </b>
|uuid=01e2296e-130e-4288-a2a2-6dc84eacded8
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Bas
|Juror amount=5
|Random juror=User:Armar, User:Justin, User:Sk8king201, User:Ovojetestic,
|Jurors=User:Isophist, User:Rht5
}}

Participant/1666195912

2022-10-19T16:11:53Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Participant
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Juror
|Name=Juror 4
|Workflow=Workflow/183
|Case ID=Aff6ahBhh9af6faHbhHi
}}

Verdict:AffDihAadGaf6diHaaDg/6

2022-10-05T16:31:22Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Role=Judge
|Workflow=Workflow/181
|Case ID=AffDihAadGaf6diHaaDg
|User=User:Rht5
|Truth=no
|Truth percentage=100
|Truth text=This is classic doublespeak. The result of an illegal referendum does not make the territories Russian.
|Whole truth=no
|Whole truth percentage=100
|Whole truth text=-They are not part of Russia. so how can they be returned to Russia?
|Nothing But the truth=no
|Nothing But the truth percentage=100
|Nothing But the truth text=It is difficult overcome bias when attempting to be believe a former KGB director
|Deceit=That part of Ukraine is really part of Russia. and that an illegal referendum can effect a transfer of a sovereign nation.
|Deceit percentage=100
|Deceit text=-
|Deceit intended=yes
|Deceit intended percentage=100
|Deceit intended text=Definitely he wants to use these claims to rectify all the bad things he is doing and is going to do in the future.
|Motivation=Maintain himself in power.
|Motivation percentage=80
|Motivation text=-
|Social acceptability=Unacceptable
|Social acceptability percentage=100
|Social acceptability text=This is the worst kind of unacceptable since people are actively being killed for the lie.
|Label=Factual lie about russia claiming land.
|Label percentage=100
}}

Verdict:AffDihAadGaf6diHaaDg/6

2022-10-05T16:27:09Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Case ID=AffDihAadGaf6diHaaDg
|Workflow=Workflow/181
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Judge
|Participant=Participant/1664986126
}}

Workflow/181

2022-10-05T16:08:48Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Judge accepted
|Filed by=User:Bas
|Case ID=AffDihAadGaf6diHaaDg
|Lie=Putin (anexing ukranine territory)
|Accusation=While Putin stated that russia has claimed Ukrainien territory for ever Ukrainian forces have already retaking parts of that claimed territory.

This makes Putins statement factually untrue, because if it would be seen as true claiming land would be as easy as saying: "I once held that territory so that means it will always be mine". That is just not how it works.

And besides this the referenda that have been taken haven't been fair for the ukrainien people.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/05/ukraine-hails-good-news-from-the-front-lines-with-major-gains-in-counteroffensives-.html
|Locations=https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-signs-law-annexing-four-ukrainian-regions-2022-10-05/
|Markup=There is no contradiction whatsoever. <b>They will be with Russia forever</b> <b>and they will be returned</b>
|uuid=01d89147-8b7f-4a16-8dab-c38ca8f847eb
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Rht5
}}

Participant/1664986126

2022-10-05T16:08:47Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Participant
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Judge
|Case ID=AffDihAadGaf6diHaaDg
|Workflow=Workflow/181
}}

Verdict:AffBjc3dc3af6bj3cd3c/1

2022-09-21T16:13:51Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Role=Juror
|Workflow=Workflow/178
|Case ID=AffBjc3dc3af6bj3cd3c
|User=User:Rht5
|Name=Juror 1
|Truth=no
|Truth percentage=100
|Truth text=There is overwhelming evidence that no such order exists.
|Whole truth=no
|Whole truth percentage=100
|Whole truth text=It's a fabrication.
|Nothing But the truth=no
|Nothing But the truth percentage=100
|Nothing But the truth text=Trump is trying to deflect
|Deceit=Trump wants us to believe that since the documents were supposedly declassified by him. no crime was committed.
|Deceit percentage=100
|Deceit text=The facts is. whether the documents were classified or not doesn't matter. Having them in the first place is the issue. He's trying to make us forget the obvious fact that he did indeed have them in his possession.
|Deceit intended=yes
|Deceit intended percentage=100
|Deceit intended text=Trump is up to his usual tactics--obfuscate. delay. confuse the issue.
|Motivation=To avoid the legal issues and to curry favor with and incite his base
|Motivation percentage=100
|Motivation text=Trump has been able to effectively use the issue to inflame. There have been many. many threats against FBI agents and offices.
|Social acceptability=Unacceptable
|Social acceptability percentage=100
|Social acceptability text=The worst kind of social unacceptability because he was in fact the President.
|Label=This is a factual lie.
|Label percentage=100
|Label text=There is substantial evidence that no such "standing order" ever existed.
}}

Verdict:AffBjc3dc3af6bj3cd3c/1

2022-09-21T16:11:14Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Case ID=AffBjc3dc3af6bj3cd3c
|Workflow=Workflow/178
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Juror
|Name=Juror 1
|Participant=Participant/1663776654
}}

Workflow/178

2022-09-21T16:10:57Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Needs jurors
|Filed by=User:Frank
|Case ID=AffBjc3dc3af6bj3cd3c
|Lie=Trump Declassified Everything
|Topic=Factual Lie
|Accusation=The Justice Department said in a court filing this week that the search of Mar-a-Lago resulted in the seizure of more than 100 unique documents with classification markings. But in posts on his social media platform, Trump has argued that he had declassified all of the documents in his possession.

"Number one, it was all declassified," he wrote in a post on August 12. "Lucky I Declassified!" he wrote in a post this Wednesday.

Trump's comments about this supposed declassification have been very vague. But conservative writer John Solomon, one of the people Trump named as a representative in his dealings with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), was more specific in a Fox appearance on August 12. Solomon read a statement, which he said was from Trump's office, claiming that Trump "had a standing order...that documents removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them."
This is patently false. Trump and his team have not provided any proof that Trump actually conducted some sort of broad declassification of the documents that ended up at Mar-a-Lago. What's more, eighteen former top Trump administration officials, including two former White House chiefs of staff who spoke on the record, told CNN in August that they never heard of a standing Trump declassification order when they were serving in the administration and that they now believe the claim is false. The former officials used words like "ludicrous," "ridiculous" and "bullsh*t."

"Total nonsense," said one person who served as a senior White House official. "If that's true, where is the order with his signature on it? If that were the case, there would have been tremendous pushback from the Intel Community and DoD, which would almost certainly have become known to Intel and Armed Services Committees on the Hill."
|Locations=https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/01/politics/fact-check-trump-claims-fbi-search/index.html
|Markup=<b>Trump "had a standing order...that documents removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them."</b>
|uuid=df7adce4-03a1-4209-a7a2-b3d7d527dd65
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Justin
|Juror amount=5
|Random juror=User:Armar, User:Bas,User:Billybob, User:Rht6, User:Icoldemo01
|Jurors=User:Rht5
}}

Participant/1663776654

2022-09-21T16:10:56Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Participant
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Juror
|Name=Juror 1
|Workflow=Workflow/178
|Case ID=AffBjc3dc3af6bj3cd3c
}}

Verdict:AffBefDfe3af6be6dfEc/3

2022-09-07T16:08:47Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Role=Juror
|Workflow=Workflow/179
|Case ID=AffBefDfe3af6be6dfEc
|User=User:Rht5
|Truth=no
|Truth percentage=95
|Truth text=The reports that amnesty and the guardian have made public state that the bad working environment causes a lot of the casualties. Hereby Ronald de Boer isn't a expert in this field and didn't give any real counter arguments.
|Whole truth=no
|Whole truth percentage=75
|Whole truth text=-
|Nothing But the truth=no
|Nothing But the truth percentage=75
|Nothing But the truth text=-
|Deceit=To support a dictatorship that Ronald de Boer has lived in for 10 years and played football for. Maybe he is even getting payed for it.
|Deceit percentage=60
|Deceit text=-
|Deceit intended=yes
|Deceit intended percentage=65
|Deceit intended text=Maybe they have tricked him into thinking like this but with all the information that is available about the subject he should now better
|Motivation=Doesn't realize what he said will be believed by people perhaps.
|Motivation percentage=60
|Motivation text=
|Social acceptability=Unacceptable
|Social acceptability percentage=95
|Social acceptability text=This can't be forgiven
|Label=A unforgivable lie about the deaths
|Label percentage=75
}}

Verdict:AffBefDfe3af6be6dfEc/3

2022-09-07T16:05:17Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Case ID=AffBefDfe3af6be6dfEc
|Workflow=Workflow/179
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Juror
|Participant=Participant/1662566475
}}

Workflow/179

2022-09-07T16:01:18Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Needs jurors
|Filed by=User:Admin
|Case ID=AffBefDfe3af6be6dfEc
|Lie=Ronald de Boer as aambassader of Qatar lies about working conditions
|Accusation=The bad working conditions and high heat have caused a lot of working migrants to die a by Qatar so called "natural death". UN studies have found that the high temperatures and pour working conditions have a significant impact on the high death rate under migrant workers.

As a tv personal Ronald de Boer supports Qatar and says that the numbers in the news and in particular 6500 workers that died is taken out of context. And supports Qatar in their work around the World Cup preparations.
I believe it is a bad lie to support a dictatorship like Qatar in the harm they do to hard working immigrants.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/08/qatar-failure-to-investigate-migrant-worker-deaths-leaves-families-in-despair/
|Locations=https://m.fcupdate.nl/ampartikel/?id=399916
|Markup=<i>he claimed that the 6,500 dead migrant workers were </i>"<b>taken out of context</b>. 
|uuid=8a6dc272-eecf-41a9-b9e1-8dfb67589682
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Frank
|Juror amount=5
|Random juror=User:Drw1, User:Estragon, User:Slightlyarrogant,
|Jurors=User:Justin,User:Armar, User:Rht5
}}

Participant/1662566475

2022-09-07T16:01:17Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Participant
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Juror
|Name=Juror 3
|Workflow=Workflow/179
|Case ID=AffBefDfe3af6be6dfEc
}}

Workflow/177

2022-08-31T16:46:26Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Settled
|Filed by=User:Frank
|Case ID=AffAieAdg0af6aiEadGj
|Lie=Bird Names for Birds
|Topic=Not a lie!
|Accusation=
The concern about eponymous and honorific common bird names is not new. But the movement to see these names changed is.

Eponyms (a person after whom a discovery, invention, place, etc., is named or thought to be named) and honorific common bird names (a name given to something in honor of a person) are problematic because they perpetuate colonialism and the racism associated with it. The names that these birds currently have—for example, Bachman’s Sparrow—represent and remember people (mainly white men) who often have objectively horrible pasts and do not uphold the morals and standards the bird community should memorialize.

The vast majority of eponymous common names were applied to birds by European and American naturalists during a period of time known as colonialism, when (primarily) European countries subjugated, exploited, and populated territories held by non-white peoples. To legitimize this endeavor, the concept of race as a classification system was developed, and the white “race” and civilization were considered superior to all others. The impacts of colonialism were global, and the false concept of race used to justify colonialism resulted in the reality of racism, a reality which has structured societies, interactions, and even survival ever since.

Eponymous common names are essentially verbal statues. They were made to honor the benefactor in perpetuity, and as such reflect the accomplishments and values that the creator esteemed. We are not bound by either the intention or the regard; we should make decisions about who and what we honor based on our own values, values that create a more equitable world for all. By continuing to use eponymous common bird names, we continue to reference and honor our distressful colonial heritage and the racism that was a direct consequence of this malicious exploitation. This is unacceptable, and we must do better.

Current events in 2020 renewed societal emphasis on social justice and have shown that the time to reevaluate is now, and are largely why this initiative formalized. We are overdue individually, as groups and communities, and as a society to reevaluate our biases, remove barriers of all kinds, and be better.

Bird Names For Birds—both the initiative and the actual bird names—will not end racism. It won’t even end all of the EDI problems within the bird community. However, it is one step. It is one problem that the bird community can be self-aware of, acknowledge, and rectify.
A growing movement to reexamine names bestowed on everything from college campuses to city streets has swelled to encompass birders, ornithologists, and conservationists. Doing away with honorifics, they say, and renaming birds for the qualities that make each special, could make the birding world more inclusive for those who have long been left out or pushed away. Once unthinkable, the scientific body that governs bird names is finally embarking on a process that could redefine not only what we call myriad birds but also birding itself.

About 150 of the roughly 2,000 North and Central American bird species have honorifics. Most were named for naturalists, such as Alexander Wilson, a chronicler of birdlife during the early 19th century and widely considered the father of American ornithology. The handful of names that commemorate women mostly use first names; Anna’s Hummingbird is a tribute to French courtier Anna Masséna, wife of an amateur ornithologist. While these figures don’t stir up much controversy, other species are saddled with heavier burdens.

Audubon’s Shearwater and Audubon’s Oriole honor renowned avian artist John James Audubon (also the namesake of this magazine), an enslaver who collected skulls from Texas battlefields during his travels. His contemporary John Kirk Townsend plundered Native American graves; his legacy lives on with Townsend’s Warbler and Townsend’s Solitaire. Scott’s Oriole carries a banner for General Winfield Scott, who willingly accepted a leading role in the genocide of Native Americans on the Trail of Tears.
|Locations=https://www.audubon.org/magazine/summer-2022/whats-bird-name
|Markup=Doing away with honorifics, they say, and renaming birds for the qualities that make each special, <i>could make the birding world more inclusive for those who have long been left out or pushed away. </i>
|uuid=19039ced-e285-43a8-84a9-4b9386d8e67b
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Rht5
|Juror amount=5
|Random juror=done
|Jurors=User:Merel3,User:Armar, User:Bas
}}

Verdict:AffAieAdg0af6aiEadGj/3

2022-08-31T16:46:08Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Role=Judge
|Workflow=Workflow/177
|Case ID=AffAieAdg0af6aiEadGj
|User=User:Rht5
|Truth=yes
|Truth percentage=30
|Truth text=I just think it won't stop things and people are good today are bad tomorrow.
|Whole truth=yes
|Whole truth percentage=30
|Whole truth text=-
|Nothing But the truth=no
|Nothing But the truth percentage=100
|Nothing But the truth text=There has to be some kind of proof for this assumption. I see none.
|Deceit=While this statement is generally true. there is some deceit in making the claim that the world be more inclusive as a result. even though it is a step in the right direction.
|Deceit percentage=90
|Deceit text=-
|Deceit intended=yes
|Deceit intended percentage=50
|Deceit intended text=I think the folks behind this initiative sincerely believe it. but they are minimizing other important factors.
|Motivation=To send a strong signal that a certain segment of the populace. i.e.. a large segment of the birding/ornithology community. strongly rejects our legacy of colonialism. racism. and cultural imperialism.
|Motivation percentage=100
|Motivation text=-My problem is that the motivation may backfire. For example if you are a decendent of Audobon you may get really upset and make a vengeful fuss. So why do it.
|Social acceptability=Acceptable
|Social acceptability percentage=20
|Social acceptability text=-
|Label=This is a claim that is believed to be true. but enacting it will nor result in the end of racism and colonialism. It is an incremental step. not a solution.
|Label percentage=100
}}

Verdict:AffAieAdg0af6aiEadGj/3

2022-08-31T16:22:10Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Case ID=AffAieAdg0af6aiEadGj
|Workflow=Workflow/177
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Judge
|Participant=Participant/1661961097
}}

Workflow/177

2022-08-31T15:52:15Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Needs jurors
|Filed by=User:Frank
|Case ID=AffAieAdg0af6aiEadGj
|Lie=Bird Names for Birds
|Topic=Not a lie!
|Accusation=
The concern about eponymous and honorific common bird names is not new. But the movement to see these names changed is.

Eponyms (a person after whom a discovery, invention, place, etc., is named or thought to be named) and honorific common bird names (a name given to something in honor of a person) are problematic because they perpetuate colonialism and the racism associated with it. The names that these birds currently have—for example, Bachman’s Sparrow—represent and remember people (mainly white men) who often have objectively horrible pasts and do not uphold the morals and standards the bird community should memorialize.

The vast majority of eponymous common names were applied to birds by European and American naturalists during a period of time known as colonialism, when (primarily) European countries subjugated, exploited, and populated territories held by non-white peoples. To legitimize this endeavor, the concept of race as a classification system was developed, and the white “race” and civilization were considered superior to all others. The impacts of colonialism were global, and the false concept of race used to justify colonialism resulted in the reality of racism, a reality which has structured societies, interactions, and even survival ever since.

Eponymous common names are essentially verbal statues. They were made to honor the benefactor in perpetuity, and as such reflect the accomplishments and values that the creator esteemed. We are not bound by either the intention or the regard; we should make decisions about who and what we honor based on our own values, values that create a more equitable world for all. By continuing to use eponymous common bird names, we continue to reference and honor our distressful colonial heritage and the racism that was a direct consequence of this malicious exploitation. This is unacceptable, and we must do better.

Current events in 2020 renewed societal emphasis on social justice and have shown that the time to reevaluate is now, and are largely why this initiative formalized. We are overdue individually, as groups and communities, and as a society to reevaluate our biases, remove barriers of all kinds, and be better.

Bird Names For Birds—both the initiative and the actual bird names—will not end racism. It won’t even end all of the EDI problems within the bird community. However, it is one step. It is one problem that the bird community can be self-aware of, acknowledge, and rectify.
A growing movement to reexamine names bestowed on everything from college campuses to city streets has swelled to encompass birders, ornithologists, and conservationists. Doing away with honorifics, they say, and renaming birds for the qualities that make each special, could make the birding world more inclusive for those who have long been left out or pushed away. Once unthinkable, the scientific body that governs bird names is finally embarking on a process that could redefine not only what we call myriad birds but also birding itself.

About 150 of the roughly 2,000 North and Central American bird species have honorifics. Most were named for naturalists, such as Alexander Wilson, a chronicler of birdlife during the early 19th century and widely considered the father of American ornithology. The handful of names that commemorate women mostly use first names; Anna’s Hummingbird is a tribute to French courtier Anna Masséna, wife of an amateur ornithologist. While these figures don’t stir up much controversy, other species are saddled with heavier burdens.

Audubon’s Shearwater and Audubon’s Oriole honor renowned avian artist John James Audubon (also the namesake of this magazine), an enslaver who collected skulls from Texas battlefields during his travels. His contemporary John Kirk Townsend plundered Native American graves; his legacy lives on with Townsend’s Warbler and Townsend’s Solitaire. Scott’s Oriole carries a banner for General Winfield Scott, who willingly accepted a leading role in the genocide of Native Americans on the Trail of Tears.
|Locations=https://www.audubon.org/magazine/summer-2022/whats-bird-name
|Markup=Doing away with honorifics, they say, and renaming birds for the qualities that make each special, <i>could make the birding world more inclusive for those who have long been left out or pushed away. </i>
|uuid=19039ced-e285-43a8-84a9-4b9386d8e67b
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Rht5
|Juror amount=5
}}

Case/AffAieAdg0af6aiEadGj

2022-08-31T15:52:14Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Suit
|Title=Bird Names for Birds
|Case ID=AffAieAdg0af6aiEadGj
|Workflow=Workflow/177
|vbvbv=You cannot manage tokens!
}}

Workflow/177

2022-08-31T15:51:40Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Judge accepted
|Filed by=User:Frank
|Case ID=AffAieAdg0af6aiEadGj
|Lie=Bird Names for Birds
|Topic=Not a lie!
|Accusation=
The concern about eponymous and honorific common bird names is not new. But the movement to see these names changed is.

Eponyms (a person after whom a discovery, invention, place, etc., is named or thought to be named) and honorific common bird names (a name given to something in honor of a person) are problematic because they perpetuate colonialism and the racism associated with it. The names that these birds currently have—for example, Bachman’s Sparrow—represent and remember people (mainly white men) who often have objectively horrible pasts and do not uphold the morals and standards the bird community should memorialize.

The vast majority of eponymous common names were applied to birds by European and American naturalists during a period of time known as colonialism, when (primarily) European countries subjugated, exploited, and populated territories held by non-white peoples. To legitimize this endeavor, the concept of race as a classification system was developed, and the white “race” and civilization were considered superior to all others. The impacts of colonialism were global, and the false concept of race used to justify colonialism resulted in the reality of racism, a reality which has structured societies, interactions, and even survival ever since.

Eponymous common names are essentially verbal statues. They were made to honor the benefactor in perpetuity, and as such reflect the accomplishments and values that the creator esteemed. We are not bound by either the intention or the regard; we should make decisions about who and what we honor based on our own values, values that create a more equitable world for all. By continuing to use eponymous common bird names, we continue to reference and honor our distressful colonial heritage and the racism that was a direct consequence of this malicious exploitation. This is unacceptable, and we must do better.

Current events in 2020 renewed societal emphasis on social justice and have shown that the time to reevaluate is now, and are largely why this initiative formalized. We are overdue individually, as groups and communities, and as a society to reevaluate our biases, remove barriers of all kinds, and be better.

Bird Names For Birds—both the initiative and the actual bird names—will not end racism. It won’t even end all of the EDI problems within the bird community. However, it is one step. It is one problem that the bird community can be self-aware of, acknowledge, and rectify.
A growing movement to reexamine names bestowed on everything from college campuses to city streets has swelled to encompass birders, ornithologists, and conservationists. Doing away with honorifics, they say, and renaming birds for the qualities that make each special, could make the birding world more inclusive for those who have long been left out or pushed away. Once unthinkable, the scientific body that governs bird names is finally embarking on a process that could redefine not only what we call myriad birds but also birding itself.

About 150 of the roughly 2,000 North and Central American bird species have honorifics. Most were named for naturalists, such as Alexander Wilson, a chronicler of birdlife during the early 19th century and widely considered the father of American ornithology. The handful of names that commemorate women mostly use first names; Anna’s Hummingbird is a tribute to French courtier Anna Masséna, wife of an amateur ornithologist. While these figures don’t stir up much controversy, other species are saddled with heavier burdens.

Audubon’s Shearwater and Audubon’s Oriole honor renowned avian artist John James Audubon (also the namesake of this magazine), an enslaver who collected skulls from Texas battlefields during his travels. His contemporary John Kirk Townsend plundered Native American graves; his legacy lives on with Townsend’s Warbler and Townsend’s Solitaire. Scott’s Oriole carries a banner for General Winfield Scott, who willingly accepted a leading role in the genocide of Native Americans on the Trail of Tears.
|Locations=https://www.audubon.org/magazine/summer-2022/whats-bird-name
|Markup=Doing away with honorifics, they say, and renaming birds for the qualities that make each special, <i>could make the birding world more inclusive for those who have long been left out or pushed away. </i>
|uuid=19039ced-e285-43a8-84a9-4b9386d8e67b
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Rht5
}}

Participant/1661961097

2022-08-31T15:51:39Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Participant
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Judge
|Case ID=AffAieAdg0af6aiEadGj
|Workflow=Workflow/177
}}

Verdict:AffAagAbiEaf6aaGab9e/5

2022-08-22T13:27:51Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Role=Juror
|Workflow=Workflow/175
|Case ID=AffAagAbiEaf6aaGab9e
|User=User:Rht5
|Name=Juror 4
|Truth=no
|Truth percentage=90
|Truth text=I don't think anarchy is a place that it will go. Plato correctly stated that we are moving toward rebellion going to a dictatorship.
|Whole truth=yes
|Whole truth percentage=80
|Nothing But the truth=no
|Nothing But the truth percentage=100
|Nothing But the truth text=It is historically wrong.
|Deceit=Unintentional
|Deceit percentage=100
|Deceit text=
|Deceit intended=no
|Deceit intended percentage=100
|Motivation=good intentions to warn of danger to the society
|Motivation percentage=90
|Motivation text=
|Social acceptability=Acceptable
|Social acceptability percentage=100
|Social acceptability text=Just needs a label saying that anarchy is not a result of democracy
|Label=Anarchy is a result of democracy, Dictatorship is.
|Label percentage=100
}}

Verdict:AffAagAbiEaf6aaGab9e/5

2022-08-22T13:22:22Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Case ID=AffAagAbiEaf6aaGab9e
|Workflow=Workflow/175
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Juror
|Name=Juror 4
|Participant=Participant/1661174523
}}

Workflow/175

2022-08-22T13:22:06Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Workflow
|Plaintiff verdict=No
|Stage=Needs jurors
|Filed by=User:Admin
|Case ID=AffAagAbiEaf6aaGab9e
|Lie=Heading towards total anarchy
|Accusation=On the Tim Ferris show podcast Balaji made the following statement:
far Left and far right agree that institutions with power are terrible.

His prediction is that we are moving towards a anarchy where police gets defunded and government has less control
|Locations=https://open.spotify.com/episode/6eRkkusvlcrW4SjAKe1cef?si=uF-EMIDKS4qUdjR-pgHrlQ
|Markup=far Left and far right agree that institutions with power are terrible. <div><br></div><div>His prediction is that we are moving towards a anarchy where police gets defunded and government has less control </div><div><br></div><div>https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1463461949702766598?lang=en</div><div><br></div><div>https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/the-witching-hour-approaches</div>
|uuid=63f43530-2e85-45b9-a759-b54d06f05945
|Random judge=done
|Judge=User:Isophist
|Juror amount=5
|Random juror=User:Drlove, User:E Rosalie,
|Jurors=User:Frank,User:Justin,User:Merel3, User:Rht5
}}

Participant/1661174523

2022-08-22T13:22:04Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Participant
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Juror
|Name=Juror 4
|Workflow=Workflow/175
|Case ID=AffAagAbiEaf6aaGab9e
}}

Verdict:Aff0efDieEaf6je6diEe/6

2022-08-15T13:21:20Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Role=Juror
|Workflow=Workflow/173
|Case ID=Aff0efDieEaf6je6diEe
|User=User:Rht5
|Name=Juror 4
|Truth=yes
|Truth percentage=60
|Truth text=I don't believe this is a lie since it is a proposed concept.
|Whole truth=no
|Whole truth percentage=75
|Whole truth text=It is a very interesting concept but stating that it will tackle all issues and be the future of cities is not very likely
|Nothing But the truth=no
|Nothing But the truth percentage=60
|Nothing But the truth text=-
|Deceit=That this vision will change the whole world
|Deceit percentage=30
|Deceit text=-I don't know if they are doing anything but an experiment.
|Deceit intended=no
|Deceit intended percentage=50
|Deceit intended text=I think they have been honest about what the concept is.
|Motivation=Getting a better image because at this moment they are one of the main oil producers of the world.
|Motivation percentage=95
|Motivation text=-
|Social acceptability=Acceptable
|Social acceptability text=Neutral
|Label=This may work in Saudi Arabia but not other places
}}

Verdict:Aff0efDieEaf6je6diEe/6

2022-08-15T13:18:18Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Case ID=Aff0efDieEaf6je6diEe
|Workflow=Workflow/173
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Juror
|Name=Juror 4
|Participant=Participant/1660569173
}}

Verdict:Aff0efDieEaf6je6diEe/5

2022-08-15T13:13:05Z

Rht5: Edited with WSForm

{{Verdict
|Case ID=Aff0efDieEaf6je6diEe
|Workflow=Workflow/173
|User=User:Rht5
|Role=Juror
|Name=Juror 4
|Participant=Participant/1660569173
}}