Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
If you can't bare to watch the parts that the media is legally allowed to show you, then you don't have a place discussing whether or not Penny is guilty. I think that's a highly uncontroversial opinion.
On December 14 2024 21:29 Magic Powers wrote: If you can't bare to watch the parts that the media is legally allowed to show you, then you don't have a place discussing whether or not Penny is guilty. I think that's a highly uncontroversial opinion.
You do have a place to say it. You don‘t have an obligation to respect the opinion when you know how it formed and that it doesn‘t fit within your standards.
On December 14 2024 21:29 Magic Powers wrote: If you can't bare to watch the parts that the media is legally allowed to show you, then you don't have a place discussing whether or not Penny is guilty. I think that's a highly uncontroversial opinion.
On December 14 2024 21:29 Magic Powers wrote: If you can't bare to watch the parts that the media is legally allowed to show you, then you don't have a place discussing whether or not Penny is guilty. I think that's a highly uncontroversial opinion.
How about no.
What do you mean how about no? What's the reason that anyone should respect an uninformed opinion?
On December 14 2024 22:47 BlackJack wrote: It’s a bold move to tell a jury that sat through the entire trial that they got it wrong if you won’t even view the evidence yourself
Did anyone do that, though?
I didn't read every post about this, but my recollection is that some people thought this should be in court, and others thought it didn't.
I don't recall anyone saying that the jury got it wrong.
On December 14 2024 22:47 BlackJack wrote: It’s a bold move to tell a jury that sat through the entire trial that they got it wrong if you won’t even view the evidence yourself
Did anyone do that, though?
I didn't read every post about this, but my recollection is that some people thought this should be in court, and others thought it didn't.
I don't recall anyone saying that the jury got it wrong.
If people weren’t questioning the jury’s decision I doubt it would even have been brought up. People didn’t start talking about it just to disagree with my opinion that it should not have been prosecuted because I offered that after the fact. Also multiple people have clearly stated in some manner that this killing was unjustified, or not self-defense.
Also magic powers last post was simply stating that if you don’t watch the available evidence you shouldn’t be deciding that Daniel Penny is guilty and even that received disagreement.
I specifically didn't opine on whether the ruling was right or wrong because i havent watched the video. My commentary was very generalized and not really about this specific case, again, because i didnt watch the video. If anything I was stating that there's no general approach that would be valid for all these types of scenarios because they should all be treated as individual cases and you need to have at least watched the video before you try to state whether penny was in the wrong or not.
Tbh it's not really about being squeamish either, ive just been browsing the thread in situations where watching a video wasnt really viable.
On December 15 2024 01:40 Jockmcplop wrote: Yeah I didn't talk about whether the ruling was right either. All I said was its right that he's prosecuted.
Yeah my objection was also to claims that charging/prosecuting was wrong on the grounds that it'll discourage other civilians from murder.
I mean simply referring to it as “murder”, which both of you did, heavily implies that you believe what he did was unlawful. It doesn’t make sense to call it murder if you’re okay with a “not guilty” verdict. You can lawfully kill someone. I don’t think you can lawfully murder someone.
The only way I can see that is if you commit a murder that is morally justified but legally prohibited, and then the law is changed to make the killing legal, thus freeing you from your incarceration...
On December 15 2024 08:49 BlackJack wrote: I mean simply referring to it as “murder”, which both of you did, heavily implies that you believe what he did was unlawful. It doesn’t make sense to call it murder if you’re okay with a “not guilty” verdict. You can lawfully kill someone. I don’t think you can lawfully murder someone.
I'm referring to the potential of others actions, not the actions of a particular in this case.
100% okay with a not guilty verdict. 86% not okay with "he should never have been charged with anything". Hope that clears things up.
George Stephanopolous of the Clinton administration and ABC are going to donate $15 million to Blumpf's presidential library to settle a lawsuit brought by the latter making up for spamming the airwaves calling him a rapist.
Is there such a difference between sexual abuser and rapist ? Like, would they have been fine calling him a sexual abuser ? Also
In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, which did not require specifically penile penetration. In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of "rape" is "substantially true".
If a judge called him a rapist wouldn't that make him one ?
On December 16 2024 05:37 Erasme wrote: Is there such a difference between sexual abuser and rapist ? Like, would they have been fine calling him a sexual abuser ? Also
In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, which did not require specifically penile penetration. In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of "rape" is "substantially true".
If a judge called him a rapist wouldn't that make him one ?
They didn't pay because they were wrong they paid because the guy they told the truth about might forget about them if they don't have an active lawsuit with them.
EPT
