Without looking at it, how can you figure out it is an advertisement or a caution / direction sign / legal announcement / public service announcement? You cannot.

Once you do look at it and it turns out to be an advertisement, you can continue your earlier thought process but your attention has been stolen from you, however little you value it.

You must daydream to be able to live with your own arrogant ignorance.

You could have admitted your ignorance directly. This will also do.

Yes, but the one being discussed here is not really back-to-back. The *middle* seat faces backwards, windows and aisle seat face towards the front.

So everyone looks at the top of the head of the ahole who reclined into your lap, and also exchange sympathetic looks with other people in similar predicament.

No, you just can't admit that you were wrong about law doing almost as much harm to criminals as the criminal did to the victim.

Awesome, the "competent " guy who is afraid of facts!

Proof by false authority. Good defence against facts, unfortunately facts cannot be beaten. Facts are on my side.

If not, give examples where law does as much (or more) harm to the criminal as the criminal did to his victim. For every such example, I can give 2 where law does far less to the the criminal than the criminal did to the victim.

I already gave some examples in my earlier posts in this same thread. You gave none, the hypothetical ones are false which you didn't even bother to defend so you know that they are false. A competent person does not have to plead to get their competence acknowledged, competence is evident from their arguments. It is missing from yours, though.

History and law includes law. Law includes last century of law, at least includes current law. In which you woefully misinformed as I pointed out. Then how does citing Roman law validate any of your statements?

It didn't validate your position in any relevant way because :

1. Your original point was about the present, not a distant past

2. My dispute was also about the last century of western law practice, as I mentioned adequately in my initial post about it.

I prefer my stubborn and right to your stubborn and wilfully-ignorant-even-after-proven-wrong.

woefully ignorant of about last century of western legal tradition

Glad that you are accepting that your comment amounts to complaining about WESTERN Roman empire TODAY.

I made it long ago - "In most jurisdictions except in middle east, law does a lot less to the criminal than the criminal did to his victim".

If you don't know this one, read some "law for dummies" about a civilized country, preferably with pictures, because dummy you are for sure.

I've made the case of your woeful ignorance of western law. If "I am not" is the best defense you've got, that's not much.

  What else do you want? I don't want to humiliate you any more.

Are you under the illusion that there is some "best" written somewhere which if done solves everyone's problems and there is no debate as to what the "best" is? Doing what's "best" according to whom?

1. According to himself? Democracy is no place to apply one's theories on the people you represent. Such a politician better find or establish a monarchy with himself as the dictator.

2. According to the people? Democracy supports this, but people's opinions need some channel to reach the politician. Poll could be the channel. The only problem with polls is that they may not be conducted well - due to sampling issues, wording of question etc.. But if these problems were avoided, poll is actually the only piece of data that matters.

Democracy, or any public voting based political system, mandates that people's opinion (majority of them anyway) is the only thing that matters subject to very few well defined rules if it is a constitutional democracy. No other "piece of data" is relevant.

This public opinion could be wrong, and it frequently is. Politician might even know it to be wrong. Still he assumes office to fulfill the wishes of people and has no business having his own opinions.

2 incompatible statements :

Good luck with your boasting of "familiarity", but you are woefully ignorant of about last century of western legal tradition.

In most jurisdictions except in middle east, law does a lot less to the criminal than the criminal did to his victim. One murder rarely gets a death sentences - in most of Europe and about half the US, a million murders may not get a death sentence because they have simply done away with the concept. Though cruelly incarcerating someone for a month might get years worth of prison - but that is because many prisons are forbidden to execute "cruel and unusual punishment", or "torture", worded and interpreted differently in different places.

Once a rape accusation fails to stick, the ex-accused can typically sue for slander if they have a case. The other things you want to "punish" are already crimes - staging the whole thing, perjury, falsifying evidence. What new are you looking for?

Just the accusation failing to stick clearly doesn't deserve much punishment for the accuser, as probably you also agree, because it doesn't prove staging the whole thing, perjury, falsifying evidence etc.

You are describing the world as it is, but disguised as "that should be done".