Have you ever done jury duty? What was your experience of it?

Is getting called just luck, like Lotto?

They say it like lotto just based on if you have a driver's license.  
Some people think it is based in voter registration but it is not.   

Guess that makes sense in the States, since probably more people are motivated to have a driver's license than to vote.

Amazing! Do some people get picked more frequently than others?
How do they choose who's name comes up?
What are the criteria for selection and rejection?

Kant is heavy duty reading. Other than professional philosophers, I've never met anyone who's read (let alone reread) 5 chapters of Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Impressive. What did you make of it?

How did you feel about being dismissed?

Do they pay jurors for the time they're not at work?

What incredible mismanagement to call an entire jury when no jury trials were convened!
What kinds of contingencies would make such wasting of people's time necessary?

Hmm. Your system's a little different to ours. Here, judges can't decide whether a jury is needed; all criminal cases require a jury. We are randomly selected from the electoral roles for a specific trial on a specific date, and required to turn up early on the day for questioning prior to the final selection. The time's only wasted if a potential juror's bias makes them unfit for the role. 

I think I'd find it very interesting to get a close up experience of how the process goes. I was called once, but had diarrhoea on the day, so overwhelmed that I'd completely forgotten my duty. When I later told them, they let me off the fine. I regretted missing my one chance.

Kant's influence on the Enlightenment - it seems he helped thinkers move from a god-centered approach to epistemology to a human-centered one. I think this human perspective paved the way for science to open up without challenging the existence of God, eliminated the risk of persecution for heresy. 

Spinoza strikes me as identical to the Hindu Vedantist point of view. Yet we don't see any Europeans study Vedanta or other Eastern philosophies until Hegel, Heidegger and Schopenhauer. Spinoza's path is logic while the Vedantists' was meditation, i.e., internal observation of the processes of the mind.

My pleasure. Too little “higher“ discourse here, IMO. 

I enjoyed your take on Spinoza, and I hold his insertion of logic (in his way) revolutionized the way people of that era (as you say, the Europeans who put no interest in Eastern thought) approached thinking about the world outside of theistic context. He was cast as heretical, but drew a following anyway. I think his writings emboldened the many prominent thinkers who followed him. In my “quest” for understanding, discovering Spinoza when I did was a welcome awakening, that gave heft to my own growing disagreements with all things Theist, the disjointed and fantastical claims that pervade belief. A powerful influence. I knew the door had opened to a broader world. 

Kant still impresses the hell out of me, as an eloquent exponent of critical thought about thinking itself, though he never took to a purer skepticism of faith, as did David Hume. I’ve only caught some excerpts of others like Schopenhauer, but that “community” is a source of constant inspiration. Would that I could contemplate freely at that level. 

This post was edited by Don Barzini at June 23, 2020 4:44 AM MDT

Agreed on 'higher' discourse.

I had several acquaintances on Experience Project who were extraordinary and delightful conversationalists. One was a historian, another a specialist in diagnosis and adaptive technologies for dyslexics (also a Kabbalist), another an Aspergic professor of economics at Christchurch in N.Z., and another responsible for development of environmental policies for a capital city. It was amazing to meet such people in the amoral cesspit that E.P. became. Eventually, like me, they left before the end because the atmosphere became too toxic and too mad. We lost touch with each other. I was sorry about that. Oddly, all were men. The world has no fewer intellectual women than men, yet I didn't chance across them in that environment. Perhaps there was some emotional or social filter in play which made it less likely that some women would discover E.P., and even less likely that they would join.

But here on AnswerMug, we do have some excellent minds. StuB is always reliable, though not present often enough. Some, like Ele and Randy prefer to play silly-buggers yet their wit often shines in their humour; both hide their lights as if they fear being too bright is a social deterrent.
A cornered one has excellent little grey cells, even if some of them become less reliable and somewhat over excitable as the decades pass.
J.A. is pretty formidable despite her hiding in the backwoods like a fairy godmother.
We've lost some, like Margaritte, OldSkool, and Nimmitz - all of whom I really miss.
Several others, though they don't seem to have made a 'thing' of intellect in their lives, easily follow and engage in interesting ways: Thrifty, Merlin, Whitehair, my2cents, Adaydream, and the pair who variously appear as some variation of jonny-goat and rainbow-boy.
All these keep me engaged here.

I wonder what it might be like if some of us started a sub-group for 'higher' discourse. Would it attract new thinkers to the site? If so, how?
Would it reduce the number of more interesting topics and discussions on the main board?

One thing I've really enjoyed about being at uni is that minds think better with heterogenous stimulation. We're provoked to think outside our normal parameters. It generates greater depth and breadth, as well as creativity.

While few reach Kantian genius, we meet new challenges to our thinking in every epoch.
What do you think are the topics most deserving a rethink now, and why? This post was edited by inky at June 23, 2020 4:44 AM MDT

I am of the view that if we engage said “higher discourse” as a matter of regular course on the home board, we may entice others to join more readily than if we risk pigeonholing ourselves in a separate “corner”.

I would worry that, while thoughtful gab will occur there, it may be just a select few who care to click over. I suggest it may reduce the potential for the kinds of topics we are talking about to occur on the main board, which could work against luring ”new talent”. Lol. I could be wrong.

My compliments on your thumbnail assessments of some of the other personalities who frequent this site. Good sorts, generally. 

As to topics, discussions of subjective topics, culture, ideals, pathos, personal philosophy and (my jam!) history and science, are among some I would like to see more of. 

As an aside, I’ve wondered about the apparent drought of lady brainiacs, too. I know some, and I know they are out there. What social forces keep them “under the radar“? 

This post was edited by Don Barzini at June 23, 2020 4:44 AM MDT

Several factors might keep female brainiacs at bay.

The opportunities for intelligent discussions here don't come along very often.

On the Creative Writing course at SCU, we were advised in the first week that social sites are massive time wasters; people who spend too much time on them don't succeed as writers. Ninety-five percent of us are women. (So I delay 'til after I've done my daily hours of reading, writing and chores.)

There's the now well-known fact that social sites can be traps for lonely women. Psychologists have all had their share of women arriving in their offices devastated after a cyber-affair. Apparently, the unconscious aspects of the mind can't distinguish between real-world experience and online, in the same way that in deep dreams the subjective perception is one of total immersion. Women talk and warn each other.

My mother had a friend, Jenny, who was very bright. Jenny's three husbands included two top psychiatrists and one of the world's top cheese scientists. She went from being a model when young, to writing children's stories, then scripts for children's programs on ABC TV, and then running the entire department for children's programming. All this while, she also worked as a thinker for the Labour party, and raised a daughter and numerous foster children and wards of state. Yet she believed that even the brightest men felt intimidated by intelligent women. So she developed a style of engaging them in conversation which never challenged their thinking, but which drew it out and praised it. She'd also play the helpless female and ask ridiculous questions, like whether the clocks jumped forwards or backwards in daylight saving, and whether that meant widdershins or deosil. The blokes fell for it every time - looking pleased as punch at the opportunity to come to the rescue. She was a step backwards for women's lib. 

The last thing I can think of is that, just as women often prefer horses while men prefer motorbikes, cars and yachts, maybe more women prefer their relationships live, rather than via these invisible and anonymous platforms.
I know I certainly prefer my live relationships with fellow writers. They bring an immediacy that this medium can't, as well as the added information that comes from facial expressions, gestures and tone of voice.
On the other hand, I'm more introverted than most, and my rural lifestyle makes it harder to meet people, further to travel. So the mug helps me fill some of that gap.

I'm sure if we could reach out further, we would find other women offering lots of other reasons.

Considering your responses to the mainboard versus separate group ideas, I think you're right. 
What if we make an effort to post more questions that have a chance of prompting thoughtful responses?
Shall we experiment to see if it draws in more thinkers?
It could be fun. This post was edited by inky at June 23, 2020 4:44 AM MDT

 Very insightful, indeed.  And how can there be any doubt really smart ladies have better things to do than chew the fat with the likes of us! I love it.

Let’s see if we can introduce some heavier material for the gang here to chew upon, maybe raise the curve a bit. Assuming, of course, it won’t be lost in the fluff of mediocrity and banal trivia. 

Sound like the website is a huge improvement.

How did the the employment contract case go? What did the jury vote? Did you agree with it and why?

How did the the rape case go? What did the jury vote? Did you agree with it and why?

How do you feel about doing jury duty?

Is it random - the way people get called?

Website very huge improvement.  

A company refused to pay an employee it fired the commission of $120,000 which it owed the employee.  We made them pay two times that.  They had done some other sleazy stuff too. 

We did not convict the guy for rape.  I hated being on this jury. This post was edited by Thriftymaid at June 23, 2020 4:44 AM MDT

Hooray!
Results like that force other companies to be more careful.
They also drive up insurance premiums, which motivates everyone to take more care.

I consider whistleblowers and employees who fight injustice to be heroes - far more interesting and valuable than stories of Hercules or Batman.

It had nothing to do with being careful.  The owner really was sleazy. 

Well, I'm still glad that a sleazt owner was found guilty and had to pay the consequences.
I hope he learned from it.

Were you glad to have escaped the duty?

Yes, my employer needed me badly.