|
SA 15+ yrs ago at the peak of the furry hate was also probably about a decade or so younger on average. I think people here have mostly grown out of it.
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/redlianak/status/1266401530216960001?s=21
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
I tried to enter into the mental context that would support this take and it broke me
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Koishi Komeiji posted:Which is a fake stereotype, that you are getting mad at, like the sloth lady. You're saying fursuiters are what, an urban legend?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/redlianak/status/1266042173117562882 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1266396075197415425?s=20 Matt Stoller defending massacring 1 million people
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
Yeah that article was great and made the point that violent suppression made peaceful democratic socialism impossible and brought about communist revolution. Way to massively miss the point.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
boethius posted:I tried to enter into the mental context that would support this take and it broke me it's just the standard lib brain take of 'fixing this one thing won't solve all problems so gently caress you for wanting it'
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
if we broke up the banks tomorrow, would that end racism? would that end sexism?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
boethius posted:I tried to enter into the mental context that would support this take and it broke me just an amazing moment in history to roll out that "the drug war is all about WHITE PEOPLE" line you've been workshopping
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1266346149645934598?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
Ending the war on drugs will only stop one avenue that fascists use to oppress people and will also allow whites to smoke weed which is a thing they are not already doing so we should not end the war on drugs. multijoe posted:You're saying fursuiters are what, an urban legend? What I'm saying is that both you and the sloth lady are creating negative stereotypes of people you hate and getting mad at them online.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
as we know, the war on drugs was started specifically so that the Nixon administration had an excuse to harass white people
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
Utilitarian Brian Tomasik is a pretty normal American liberal on day to day politics. However!Brian Tomasik posted:Downsides of liberal politicians include the following: He thinks habitat destruction is good because most animals' lives are net suffering and it would be better if they were never born.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
I tear down all birdhouses I see because small birds are likely to die within a year of being born, and not accumulate more happiness than suffering. Birdhouses are little misery factories.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
The point of technology is to prevent suffering Being alive leads to suffering. The solution? Death! 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
Koishi Komeiji posted:The point of technology is to prevent suffering 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/merica/status/1266460796214804480
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
lotta hot takes today for some reason: https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266381670950883330 Minnesota has a democratic governor, mayors, senators, etc. but yeah vote or whatever
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
lol. "bitch biden shoulda put my daughter on his PAC board like I wanted"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/1266462897288425472
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/asapaimaaa/status/1266478471754190851?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
quote:combination of force & health problems contributed to death It wouldn’t matter if he had an eggshell skull, you fucks.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It wouldn’t matter if he had an eggshell skull, you fucks. That's a civil law concept that doesn't precisely translate to criminal law. I don't know the ins and outs of Minnesota's laws at all because why would I as I am not a criminal in Minnesota or criminal lawyer in Minnesota but the relevant stuff would be the manslaughter and murder stuff here and how it works with how they determine intent. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
FacebookEmpathyMom posted:That's a civil law concept that doesn't precisely translate to criminal law. I don't know the ins and outs of Minnesota's laws at all because why would I as I am not a criminal in Minnesota or criminal lawyer in Minnesota but the relevant stuff would be the manslaughter and murder stuff here and how it works with how they determine intent. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609 The Wikipedia article repeatedly states that it is also applied in criminal law. With the important criminal precedents listed. e: looking closer, that situation was a relative recent British case. I looked and it is a standard element of criminal law in America law as well. If you think about it, there is no way you couldn't not apply this rule to cases involving rich white people, or lots of old rich fuckers could be murdered really easily. Hodgepodge has issued a correction as of 00:38 on May 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:The Wikipedia article repeatedly states that it is also applied in criminal law. With the important criminal precedents listed. As mentioned in the other thread this came up in that's common law jurisdictions like the UK and Australia. US criminal law is a bit of a different beast. Now I'm not saying for 100% sure it's not used somewhere in the US, but in general the intent required to convict someone of homicide is going to be based on the relevant statutes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
FacebookEmpathyMom posted:As mentioned in the other thread this came up in that's common law jurisdictions like the UK and Australia. US criminal law is a bit of a different beast. Now I'm not saying for 100% sure it's not used somewhere in the US, but in general the intent required to convict someone of homicide is going to be based on the relevant statutes. That's why I linked a definition specifying that it applies to American criminal law. And pointed out that it wouldn't be possible for criminal law to protect the people it wants to protect without it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:The Wikipedia article repeatedly states that it is also applied in criminal law. With the important criminal precedents listed. So before I get into this response let me first say that I think and hope that Chauvin will be charged with the highest murder charge Minnesota has. gently caress him. But if he is convicted it probably be either third degree murder or a manslaughter as much as that sucks. Because it's all about intent and the victim's underlying health condition isn't really relevant at all beyond the fact that the cop did a thing and it resulted in death. So for something to be the lowest kind of murder in Minnesota it has to be within 609.195 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195 quote:(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years. There's no room here for an eggshell skull rule because the the act has to be eminently dangerous and evincing a depraved mind w/o regard for human life. Say for example that two people are engaged in an argument and one slaps the other. The person slapped has a medical condition and the slap results in death. Now if the eggshell rule applied that would be murder, but it can't be murder because slapping someone isn't eminently dangerous. It's not murder even though the eggshell rule exists because really their health condition doesn't matter, what matters for the purpose of the law is what the person intended to do and the fact that it resulted in death. I guess you could say that's an eggshell rule since it's all about the intent but at that point you're getting into a tautology. You don't really need an eggshell rule here because the relevant questions are did they die and did you intend to do something that would fit what the statute says is murder. There's also manslaughter which has a lower intent requirement. The lowest kind of manslaughter is 609.205 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205 I especially like (2) quote:A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both: Going back to my original hypothetical I don't think most people would say that slapping someone creates and unreasonable risk and has the chance of causing death or great bodily harm. Slaps don't do that kind of damage. Now maybe if you know someone is really loving frail and do it anyway, that changes things, but that wouldn't be the eggshell rule because that rule is about unknown conditions. This is getting too effort posty though and gently caress effort so I'll just say that US criminal law is mostly driven by the statutes and not common law concepts. HashtagGirlboss has issued a correction as of 01:12 on May 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
we aren't lawyers, and trying to dig deeper than "yes, this broad rule applicable in the jurisdiction" is a good way to end up arguing about things that are legally unrelated like i am here saying that the rough equivalent of "negligence rather than intent is not a defense in homicide cases," and you are saying "there is a law that specifically applies to negligent homicide." great, that doesn't make negligence a defense, it makes it evidence towards conviction for a specific type of homicide.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 01:11
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:we aren't lawyers, and trying to dig deeper than "yes, this broad rule applicable in the jurisdiction" is a good way to end up arguing about things that are legally unrelated I'm saying that broad rule isn't really applicable but yeah it's not particularly important because crushing someone's neck with your knee easily satisfies at bare minimum the third degree murder law.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
also lol at saying that american law is more driven by precedent than common law concepts. I'll let you look up the definition of commom law so you can appreciate why this is funny.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
FacebookEmpathyMom posted:I'm saying that broad rule isn't really applicable but yeah it's not particularly important because crushing someone's neck with your knee easily satisfies at bare minimum the third degree murder law. it isn't applicable to whether they committed a crime, it's applicable to what crime they committed. thats a big difference. although the difference seems to come down to his mental state, so it's really just applicable, but what crime he is guilty of is up for argument, i think
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
“Doesn’t matter” may have been a step too far, but they act like “well if the guy had a preexisting condition, the Chauvinists are totally off the hook! Case closed!” when that is absolutely not the case. It’s “died from COVID vs. died with COVID” in a nut shell.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 01:22
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:“Doesn’t matter” may have been a step too far, but they act like “well if the guy had a preexisting condition, the Chauvinists are totally off the hook! Case closed!” when that is absolutely not the case. nothing can stop a jury, etc, which hates black people/loves the taste of boot enough and the law doesn't apply to spin, and reality itself is inapplicable to chudthink
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:“Doesn’t matter” may have been a step too far, but they act like “well if the guy had a preexisting condition, the Chauvinists are totally off the hook! Case closed!” when that is absolutely not the case. yeah ultimately you're right and I'm just being prissy about words
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 01:40
|
|
|
There've been more egregious cases of cops getting away with murder in Minneapolis alone i think it's pretty well established that whatever the letter of the law could hypothetically be construed to imply, any interpretation suggesting it might be illegal for q cop on duty to kill black people might as well be sovereign citizen poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
This person used to co-host a late night show with a talking sock, and the sock was the smart one
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
Koishi Komeiji posted:lotta hot takes today for some reason: That's not a hot take, that's just a lazy one
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Maximo Roboto posted:That's not a hot take, that's just a lazy one 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 04:52
|
|