After studying court verdicts a bunch by attitude has always been that if I ever end up in irons try my hardest to get a bench trial with sentencing after lunch.
naevaTheRat
joined 2 years ago
See? outing your barely repressed antisocial violent urges.
Sorry champ, can't have you raping the kids. Considered more male appropriate work like investment banking? Leave those jobs that involve contributing to society in community to us girls.
What in the gender essentialist fuck? You cannot bar all men from jobs involving kids. You need a working with children check to run an extracurricular class, what are you smoking?
When you get to university take a couple of electives in philosophy, including philosophy of science.
Mate if you're trying to argue that the C suite and board of exxon should be hanging in a gibbet in the harbour I'm fucking here for it.
The greed of the wealthy is impossible to satiate and that is the source of all lack of essential resources in our modern age.
Actually good charitable causes shouldn't depend on the whims of the rich anyway. We should tax people and decide democratically what matters.
Produce studies saying to say it’s not harmful, or be quiet.
My dude, that is not how epistemology works. You cannot prove a negative empirically.
Produce studies and I swear to god if it's that one where they say kids are scroiling Instagram for 9 hours a day when they report using it as a messenging application I will reach through the screen and strangle you.
Legislation should not be based on vibes ffs. I think Mark Zuckerburg should be hung in a public square and skinned alive for the evil he has wrought with shit like aiding genocide but there is not sufficient evidence that social media, which covers everything from usenet to lemmy to Instagram to youtube, causes harms warranting age based bans. This is a world where we allow coca cola and factory farming, "it's probably bad for some people some of the time" is clearly not the bar for criminalisation.
Whole thing is a moral panic. No good evidence exists of harms, but nobody needs evidence to believe what they want to.
You could like ban algorithmic endless feeds if that was bad, you could enforce content moderation standards if bad content was the issue. But no, this is just surveillance state expansion and traditional media handwringing being cheerfully assisted by the feckless "think of the children" crowd.
I am having trouble understanding what you wrote.
I mean it in the sense, you lose the excuse to take a long lunch getting vaxxed. Not that vaccines are bad. I am not a lunatic, anyone who is even remotely pro social and not significantly unhealthy gets every vaccine they can because being a vector is the ultimate cringe.
My wife followed it closely and is a bit of a lawy person from a family of lawyers.
From what she relayed it seems difficult to explain why she took all the actions she did, except if she did a murder, but given that murder has the bar of intent as well I'm not really sure the prosecution established that she did murder.
But like she obviously collected, preserved, and then fed people poisonous mushrooms just like did she intend to kill people beyond reasonable doubt? Idk