Maybe there should be four buttons:
Which could be used for more filtering options.
Or maybe a separate agreement/disagree metric. I wouldn’t mind seeing the consensus on a topic separate from the measure of usefulness.
It’s just that it’s boring. I’d rather have an interesting debate. Downvoting everything you simply disagree with just leads to groupthink forums.
And then getting downvoted by people who just disagree with your opinion. I’m one of the Reddit refugees so I don’t know if we brought that with us or Lemmy was like that before but it’s sad to see.
Holy crap. I have Tidal on my phone and Plex at home. I didnt know I could connect them. Thank you!
I said “option” to retreat not “duty” which is an important distinction I think. And there’s also the option of other reasonable force. I don’t think killing to protect my TV is reasonable, but fighting back possibly even causing injury might be. If I lived in a place where the intruder wasn’t likely to be armed, I’d probably whack his hand with broom handle, and I wouldn’t even feel bad if I broke his wrist because some use of force to keep a stranger from entering my house is warranted. When it comes to lethal force though the standard should be higher, which is why I prefer the self-defense/defense of others test. Did the guy have good reason to think the person breaking in was an imminent danger, that he might be armed and therefore escalation to firing a gun was reasonable? I don’t pretend to know, but I think that’s the test that should be used. That test should take into account that it was his house being broken in to, and that there was another person present he might have wanted to protect, because that definitely affects your perception of danger. We don’t need a set of principles that say you automatically get a pass when it’s your house, I think it’s better to look at each case individually.
Do Renaults often figure into your thinking? ;)
No disagreement. I’m a commie pinko by American standards, which is to say slightly left by European standards. I support gun regulation but it won’t solve the proliferation until we face up to this weird fetishization of guns we have.
I do not agree with the castle doctrine. It’s too easily used to justify lethal force when retreat is an option, however self-defense is a valid justification and from the description given I think that’s completely plausible. An unknown person breaking the glass and potentially armed could be a threat. It sucks that a guy who possibly did nothing wrong has to defend himself in an investigation, but we should have a high bar on lethal actions for civilians and cops (the standard should be higher for cops).
Of course. They’re patient. They chipped away at abortion for decades before finally getting it overturned in Dobbs.
Similarly they went from Masterpiece Cake Shop to the Creative LLC case which widened the exception further because it’s a “creative endeavor”. Don’t for a minute think they’re not queing up a case to deny medical services based on a “sincerely held religious beliefs”.
“against your Christian religion”. Fixed that for you.
Of course. And if the parents dress them in that and keep them isolated the kids will pass that on to the next generation. If the kids go to school and see there are other options, maybe they’ll choose to be different when they’re independent or raise their kids differently. This is why cults always seek to isolate their members – exposure to diversity breaks the cycle.
I don’t know the law in France, but I’d worry it’ll cause religious parents to just keep their kids out of state school and do some form of private religious education, causing a greater divide. The best counter to these attitudes is exposure to diversity and other viewpoints. Maybe the kids going to school and seeing that there are other ways is better.
The drunk driver, and sometimes the bartender who overserved: https://www.scribd.com/document/627785752/Press-Release-4
You’re about a decade off. It was started in the 80s and ended under Clinton. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
Early hominids interbred. Modern humans are a result of that mixing.
I don’t think there’s any great mystery to this. We want to breed with the mate most likely to help us produce viable offspring. Therefore we’re sensitive to indications of health and good genes. Symmetry, smoothness of muscle movements, quality of skin & hair, indications of good blood flow, even things like regular breathing are all indications. When we see a simulation that appears not quite human it’s noticable for all those details. That detection of unhealthy can easily detect death of course. There may also have been an instinct to avoid the sick, but social pressures override that sometimes.
The internet theory that we wanted to detect imposter humans is silly. Early hominids interbred a lot. It’s not “human” that we’re sensitive too. Just health.
Luck, car engineering, and medical science. She was seriously injured. Was she trying to kill herself, I have no idea. Clearly needs mental health treatment which she’s not likely to get in prison. Not that I think she should be free either.
Well that sounds like socialism! /s
I happen to be one of those Americans that think despite their many flaws, the authors of the Constitution had some fundamentally good ideas. And we used the Constitution as intended to expand individual rights after the Civil War with the 14th Amendment. Shamefully we never got around to the Equal Rights Amendment to include women.
What most Americans don’t realize is that the vast majority of what we consider foundational principles are not actually in the Constitution but are instead case law, and how recent much of that is. It wasn’t until 15 years after the Civil War that there was a Supreme Court case which established the idea that corporations are persons under the law and deserving of many of the rights granted under the Constitution using (or mis-using in my opinion) that same 14th Amendment.
Why does that matter? Because it gave corporations an “equal” seat at the table when it comes to disputes. The problem, as you point out, is that our civil dispute resolution system DOES depend on the resources of the “person” and corporations will ALWAYS have more resources. Lots and lots of cases have given corporations more rights and the result is the corportacracy we have now. In other words we went fundamentally the wrong direction diluting the power of the individual. And because corporations have such disproportionate influence on the laws and administrative procedures, we diluted the power of government to represent the people. This has been going on for ~120 years but it kicked into high gear in the 80s (Reagan era).
I’m glad that you guys are still somewhat rational about this, but unfortunately the anti-democratic trend in the US is replicating in the rest of the world. I worry that future histories will compare the rise of this garbage in the US to the start of fascism in Italy in the 1930s.
Sorry, went off on a tangent deep in the comments, but I spend too much time thinking and worrying.
Disclaimer that I have not followed this case and I’m not a lawyer.
In the US civil cases can have both compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory is meant to “right the wrong” where you get reimbursed for financial losses, lost time, things you had to pay for as a result of the incident, etc. Punitive is meant to punish the offender if the case finds they acted with some negligence, and ultimately get them and others to change their behavior.
Take the infamous McDonald’s coffee case. The woman who was injured originally only asked for McDonald’s to pay for her medical treatment. She required skin grafts. The jury found that McDonald’s knowing let this circumstance exist where someone was going to get a serious injury and added on punitive damages. Which the judge cut back.
If you call them PanoPods you can probably get venture capital funding and then just go buy a train and paint it with a cool design.