In the US the apps don't work at all. I have no idea how to get likes here. It is tremendously easier for me to just approach a woman in a bar or in a coffee shop.
The business modell has failed. Tinder actually defrauded me. My account (email only just disappeared), they claim I "deleted it" and my paid subscription has gone down the drain. (Warning, don't use Tinder, does not work and they scam you).
In the US it is a waste of time. Just people who collect IG followers and attention whores.
"Still not sure with so many of the (esp right leaning) in the US claiming to be christian, can also accept this as a punishment."
You shall not kill!
What I don't understand. It is my impression that most of the US states that still have the death penalty, strongly oppose abortion. I find this a contradiction. And also these are the states that oppose abortion, at the same time are strictly against any kind of welfare "not our problem!".
I think it’s a question of agency. If you’re an adult that makes their own choices (crime, bad financial decisions, etc.), then you know what the consequences are.
If you’re an unborn child, you’re don’t have agency.
For some there’s probably deeper religious belief in good things (birth) being the work of God and bad things (crime, vice, death) being the work of Satan.
To your point there are plenty of competing religious teachings that could lead some to be pro-choice, pro-welfare and anti-death penalty.
"In this quest for vengeance I think people forget these rules are in place for the State to not abuse it's powers. I'm not against the death penalty because I'm a hippy vegan. I'm against it because I don't think it's a power the state should be able to wield."
I am not sure what the US tries to achieve with the death penalty. Deterrence? Seems not to work. And EU countries have much lower violent crime. Even if they have assault rifles at home (Switzerland). Revenge? An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
No, but they have ability to influence procedural outcomes. This is the whole purpose of the so-called “Innocence Project”. They very much attempt to free convicted murderers, and often enough they succeed at this task.
What’s the value of me doing that, when the case has been prosecuted and was argued in all instances of appellate court literally to death? You can read court opinions, they are plentiful in information, and do not suffer from elementary logic errors.
You made at least two claims: " it prevented lying activists from freeing an obviously guilty"
(1) activists are lying
(2) obviously guilty
If you cannot rebut the points made, the second claim is not supported. The article lists points that exactly put into question the guilty verdict in this case
If you cannot point out the specific lies, your first claim is then also unsupported.
You seem to have started in a rebuttal when stating: "and do not suffer from elementary logic errors." Perhaps you can demonstrate those logic errors? (Preferably with full quotes from the article)
I am certainly very specifically interested in the lies you believe to have been conveyed.
My claims are supported by the arguments made by the prosecution in all instances of the appellate court, the arguments that jury and the appellate courts found convincing. Even the dissenting SCOTUS justices would not argue that the guy actually is innocent.
Again, can you explain to me what’s the value of me reiterating the same stuff that’s in the court documents? Do you think that activists should just be able to gish-gallop everyone by forcing them to repeatedly argue the exact same points?
Okay, it is: "The article lists points that exactly put into question the guilty verdict in this case" vs "are supported by the arguments made by the prosecution in all instances of the appellate court"
Do you find the points raised in the article not compelling? Perhaps you could specifically address at least the point raised that the witness testimony was biased?
Still waiting for the specific lies.
The value in at least pointing out the lies is so that your claim of lies can begin to be supported - that we can see at least what you claim to be a lie. The article seems to be relatively expository. Not only would something have to be false, it would have to be knowingly so. Calling someone a liar, IMO is very significant. It should be therefore supported.
> Do you think that activists should just be able to gish-gallop everyone by forcing them to repeatedly argue the exact same points?
My opinion there is kinda immaterial. If we did go down that road, I'd have to ask you to precisely define most of those terms. Which seems like a tedious exercise, and again my 2 cents on that question seems immaterial. If you are perhaps implying I am an activist, I would not consider myself as such. I do try to practice skepticism. I also sincerely and greatly value _truth_.
So, perhaps we can start with what you claim is a lie?
Yes. That's what the statistics say. If you exclude shootings by blacks and Hispanics, America's gun killing rate is similar to high-gun-ownership western European countries.
I actually did and it said: "While the proportion of critically viewed gliadins fell by around 18 percent, the proportion of glutenins rose by around 25 percent."
Sure, you can say one thing is a little bit lower and another thing is a little bit higher, so it is the same. But as I always said: Units! Units! Units!
Pixels were always mediocre. LTE stability issues, major call bugs, GPU driver issues, camera cover cracking, etc. Some of those problems are Tensor SoC related.
"If you take a firecracker apart and light the powder, you’ll get a flash and a lot of smoke, but no bang. The explosion comes from the pressure building up in an enclosure."
True. But if you open enough firecrackers and put the powder in a small plastic container you will not get a bang but a buff and a fireball the size of a car.
Disclaimer: I am a chemist and a former very unwisely curious kid
In the US it is a waste of time. Just people who collect IG followers and attention whores.
reply