tlou3please

joined 4 months ago
[–] tlou3please 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

But this is a case of all or nothing. You either say the death penalty IS acceptable or it ISN'T. There is no in between. So highlighting a case with certainty doesn't address the issue of cases with less certainty.

[–] tlou3please 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Even then, there is some hypothetical scenario that could at least mitigate guilt. For example, drink spiking with some kind of drug. I'm not saying that's what happened or I think that happened, my point is 100% certainty is an impossible bar.

[–] tlou3please 1 points 1 month ago (7 children)

With respect, it kind of misses the point to highlight a case where guilt is basically certain. That's not my concern. My concern is the fringe cases with more ambiguity. I think that if there's even a 1% chance that an innocent person is executed, the risk isn't worth it.

[–] tlou3please 3 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Sure, you've invented a fictional scenario that has never happened but appears quite certain. But even then there are external factors you can't account for such as duress.

[–] tlou3please 52 points 1 month ago (23 children)

That's kinda what it comes down to for me though. Can you EVER be 100% sure? Even if you're 99.5% sure, odds are sooner or later you'll execute someone who was innocent. And in my opinion that one single lost innocent life means the practice is unjustifiable.

I wonder how many people who disagree with me are pro life.

[–] tlou3please 9 points 1 month ago

My understanding is that "persons" refers to people in discrete groups, where what separates those groups is pertinent to the topic being discussed.

For example - 'indigenous persons' refers collectively to indigenous people, but acknowledges that there are separate subgroups of indigenous people within that. You could equally say "indigenous people" and it would be correct but you lose that nuance by not acknowledging that there are internal divisions within the group you are referring to.

Not saying that's the dictionary definition, but that's how it's generally used in my field.

[–] tlou3please 4 points 2 months ago

Caecilius est in horto

[–] tlou3please 12 points 2 months ago (13 children)

I've been inside his mother jokes on him

[–] tlou3please 34 points 2 months ago (2 children)

As an outsider looking in, I've seen a lot of footage of rallies and events (on both sides) that are just absolutely crazy to me. Almost dystopian. People with painted faces, all kinds of merch, hollering and shouting and cheering like it's the X Factor or a rock concert or something. You see people being interviewed outside the events and it's like a festival in the background. It's really, really bizarre. We have problems with our politics here too but not like that. I can't believe that all of those people are ACTUALLY that passionate about any policies themselves, it's just vague culture wars nonsense with a bizarre personality contest as a proxy for it.

As I say, I'm not trying to act superior. My country has its share of problems too, just a very different sort.

[–] tlou3please 40 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Am I going mad or does she look a bit like Elon Musk?

[–] tlou3please 26 points 2 months ago

How long have you been working here? Okay, good.

[–] tlou3please 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Nah it's a strangely worded title you're good

view more: ‹ prev next ›