zapatos

🤣

True, but that's the question I was asked so I gave it my best shot.

Their frame of mind will brought up in court and the judges might take that into account. What matters most is what the majority who passed the laws thought. The perpetrator may think they were justified but the courts will deal with them according to the law and according to precedent. People are generally judged by the standard of a "reasonable" person, and people who believe they were saving their country from an insurrection mounted by the Democrats will not be judged "reasonable". Their cases will be judged by the same standards used as with the 60 or so court cases we've already seen regarding the "stolen election". So no difference between killing a person for fun or killing a person in self defense... I'm not confusing it. I am saying qualifiers do exist, and that was an easy and obvious example. Depends. Were the circumstances the same for all 23 killings? If they were the same, I would feel the same. If they were different I might feel differently about them.

First of all, thanks for thinking of me! 😁 It is my belief, supported by all major governments in the world (AFAIK) that some acts of violence are worse than others. As an example, if two people are in a fight and one is killed, the government has usually deemed that the killing is worse if you were the aggressor in the fight, and better if you were defending yourself. The difference between the penalty applied in the case of the fight is determined by what society has deemed 'worse' or 'better'. Generally speaking, society frowns on the aggressor and smiles on the defender. Of course that doesn't mean everyone in the society agrees, only that some level of the majority agrees. What we are really doing here is telling everyone what our own personal worldview is with respect to violence and what we feel is 'better' and 'worse'. In my mind it mostly has to do with fairness or reasonableness. I feel the Capitol folks who broke the law were 'worse' than BLM folks who broke the law where the lawbreaking was comparable. It seems clear to me that blacks were generally offered little redress to their complaints (it is a fact that blacks experience violence from police disproportionately to whites), while the Capitol rapscallions simply didn't like the result of a fair election. Therefore, breaking a window of a store during a BLM protest is wrong and should be punished, but is not as bad as breaking a window at the Capitol during an insurrection. From a personal standpoint, I guess I would feel better knowing that my window was broken by someone who did it in a fit of rage over one of their own dying for illegally selling individual cigarettes, rather than by someone who is trying to overturn my vote because he's a sore loser.

This really is getting personal.

Must you always be snarky?

I think it's already begun. 😆

That's not what MigL claimed though. He was suggesting that iNow was unfairly dismissing valid claims of Democratic/Progressive mis-steps. You'll need to show not that iNow said "false equivalency" but that he did it simply as a dismissal of a valid criticism. @MigL - I know you did not mention me specifically as someone who was dismissive of comments regarding poor 'Progressive' behavior but if you think I am guilty I'd honestly like to hear so. I don't think I am but of course it is sometimes difficult see ones own flaws.

Got it. Yes, I can clearly see that as a problem for the owner of the content. Thanks.

Are you saying it is less traffic because the user doesn't start at the home page and work their way down? As opposed to Google taking you to the specific page you need?

Can you explain that please? Doesn't Google take you to that particular site? Are the ads on that site not seen?

Other than scales this seems no different than a municipality raising taxes on a small store to help pay for local services. It is their prerogative to do so, and it is my prerogative to move my store if I find the burden too onerous. And yes, Google is accountable to its shareholders, just as governments are accountable to their constituents.

That was awesome! Made my day! 😁

Thanks for posting! I'm always on the look out for good content.

Just to be clear, are you going to provide a source for this assertion or not?

When the legal profession follows their own guidelines, which I believe nowadays they generally do, then supporting their own client with zealousness works well to uncover the truth. Where we still have a long way to go is with the politicians who decide who to believe based on politics (see recent US Supreme Court nominees) or the public who decide who to believe based on how it will impact their fantasy football league (e.g. Death threats against accuser of football and basketball stars.)

I think you are misunderstanding our position. We are not suggesting that we pre-favour the testimony of one over the other. What we are suggesting is that we STOP pre-favouring the testimony of one over the other. History has shown that all too often the accused is presumed innocent (as it should be) while the accuser is presumed to be making a false accusation. What we are suggesting is that we continue to presume the accused is innocent, while at the same time presuming that the accuser is telling the truth.

When they said “should be automatically 100% believed without doubt.” did you laugh and tell them that was an asinine position?

Believing everything I'm told by anonymous strangers on the internet is not my modus operandi. Even when they give me their personal assurances.

Well then there is no reason to believe such an outlandish assertion, is there?

Can you please provide a citation?

None of the links provided by beecee and tim.tdj support the assertion that "some people are saying that alleged victims of sexual abuse and rape should be automatically 100% believed without doubt." beecee's links are examples people apparently being falsely accused of crimes and suffering the consequences prior to being released. Sad but doesn't directly address the assertion. tim.tdj's link seems to refute his own assertion: ""don't assume women as a gender are especially deceptive or vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones."

Do you have evidence to support this claim? I didn't get into a college I applied to and did not feel I had been discriminated against. I didn't find anything unjust about them using academic qualifications at certain schools.

You seem to have a non-standard definition of the word "discrimination". Discrimination involves unfair or unjust behavior.