When is the wearing of a 'burka' innopropriate ?

[Semicolon]

Changing your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one.

It's not easy, but it can still be done.  I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job.  The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony.  It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case. 

Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena.

The point of cross-examination is to discredit the opponent's witnesses.

[bodie]

What about someone in a burka wearing dark sunglasses? 


 

[RageBeoulve]

So let me get this straight. Burkas won't be allowed in some places because "they're creepy". Is that really whats being said in here?

[conlang returns]

Changing your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one.

It's not easy, but it can still be done.  I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job.  The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony.  It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case. 

Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena.

The point of cross-examination is to discredit the opponent's witnesses.

Same difference.  They succeed or they fail.  The point is different members of the judicial system have different jobs.  Considering that members of the jury will not always even have good perception of body language, evaluating it would be the job of an expert witness called by legal council, with the permission of the judge. 

[Jack]

So let me get this straight. Burkas won't be allowed in some places because "they're creepy". Is that really whats being said in here?

Is this directed at me? If so, then no, just said I think they're creepy. Can't really think of any grounds to disallow them.

[Semicolon]

Changing your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one.

It's not easy, but it can still be done.  I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job.  The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony.  It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case. 

Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena.

The point of cross-examination is to discredit the opponent's witnesses.

Same difference.  They succeed or they fail.  The point is different members of the judicial system have different jobs.  Considering that members of the jury will not always even have good perception of body language, evaluating it would be the job of an expert witness called by legal council, with the permission of the judge.

I think you're universally applying aspie standards to a mixed aspie/NT world. I would think that a case that's easy to decide would be settled out of court, to avoid the expense of litigation. The job of the jury is to evaluate the evidence to find the truth of a case. Any expert witness you call in to interpret body language would be doing the jury's job.

[conlang returns]

Changing your body language is extremely difficult as much of it is subconscious so it could be a diffident advantage for the person wearing one.

It's not easy, but it can still be done.  I would say that if the jury has to rely on its own perception of body language to determine if someone is lying, then opposing council is not doing its job.  The point of a cross-examination is to demonstrate a person's honesty, or at the very least the correctness of their previous testimony.  It's not the job of the jury, but of the lawyers arguing the case. 

Even when people have completely normal perception, their experience of another person's body language is still subjective, and I would want the adversarial system to rely on more objective phenomena.

The point of cross-examination is to discredit the opponent's witnesses.

Same difference.  They succeed or they fail.  The point is different members of the judicial system have different jobs.  Considering that members of the jury will not always even have good perception of body language, evaluating it would be the job of an expert witness called by legal council, with the permission of the judge.

I think you're universally applying aspie standards to a mixed aspie/NT world. I would think that a case that's easy to decide would be settled out of court, to avoid the expense of litigation. The job of the jury is to evaluate the evidence to find the truth of a case. Any expert witness you call in to interpret body language would be doing the jury's job.

I'm bringing up universal human weaknesses.  Even non-autistics misjudge each other and get lied to and get fooled.  It's possible that you might get lucky and end up with a jury made up of body language savants, from whom no deception can be disguised, and to whom the truth will always shine, but more likely you will not.  Hell, part of preparing a witness to testify is coaching on performance.  "Don't touch your hair at the end of that particular sentence, it makes you look like a liar."  That is why you have cross examinations and expert witnesses in the first place. 

[Gopher Gary]

They should just make everyone in the courtroom be naked. 

What about someone in a burka wearing dark sunglasses? 


 

Naked and wearing sunglasses. 

[RageBeoulve]

So let me get this straight. Burkas won't be allowed in some places because "they're creepy". Is that really whats being said in here?

Is this directed at me? If so, then no, just said I think they're creepy. Can't really think of any grounds to disallow them.

I was speaking generally, but yes. There is no factual reason to abuse these people.

[Icequeen]

Doesn't matter to me.
Just thinking how hot and uncomfortable that has to be.

I would be dying. 

[Lestat]

I'd be ok-ish with them staying legal, if only they could be made mandatory for a few select individuals, under pain of death by slow torture.

Namely cherie blair, angela merkel, one of my next door neighbors to name a couple
Ban the burka generally IMO, it is not contributing to the good of anything, or anyone despite how they might think so due to religious psychological conditioning/brainwashing and make it mandatory for any ugly people going out in public.

['andersom']

What about someone in a burka wearing dark sunglasses? 


 

Didn't Trigger post a few years ago about not being allowed to wear sunglasses in court? Or at least having a very hard time getting that allowed.

[Adam]

I guess if you're a teacher or a doctor (unless you are only dealing with other muslim patients who actually want that (?)

I dunno.

Teachers shouldn't be allowed to though

As for court,  dunno. The thing that does bother me is the double standards though. You can't cover your face in here UNLESS IT'S FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS

You can't kill animals in inhumane ways UNLESS IT'S FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS

You can't fuck about with your kids' genitals UNLESS IT'S FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS

Ffs, Either something is wrong or it's not.

[RageBeoulve]

You can't fuck about with your kids' genitals UNLESS IT'S FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS

That one always brings my blood to a boil. I don't like torturing animals either, but cutting off pieces of your own children when they are babies? That is purely widespread mental illness.

[Adam]