Someone said “we avoided war when we killed in self interest” from @Existence is identity

We gunna need to see some evidence for dat

*more

Stalin called off the Japs

Baseless facts. No surprise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

dont we go to war to prevent war? it doesnt always work, but its the intent

What I said was incoherent though

well thats killing in self interest to prevent war. or at least greater war

@RekItRalph

@RekItRalph Ahh🤗 My fav faboo troll.

Do you guys think marianne williamson could win in 2020?

This person does seem to be a rather strange individual but they are saying the right things.

That is to say, very vague statements which can be summarized as: "I want to help america be more democratic, I want the society to be more peaceful and the economy to be sustainable". But we havent gotten to any policy yet. Hang on. Very bold claims about the government being bought out by corporations and selling off natural resources, but not completely out there. This person actually has the potential to be an FDR style trust buster candidate as long as they stick to the generalizations and rally people against corporations.

Claim in comments - currently under investigation - Please note that Marianne is a phony and not the wise spiritual person she pretends to be. She once said on KPFK that anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite. She didn't acknowledge that Israel is the most condemned country in UN history or that they just murdered over 200 unarmed Gazans and purposely crippled more than 10,000.

leftists seem to love her

I already she's a fraud. I just don't know, if people are dumb enough to vote for her

people on reddit don't like her

I think she'll win eveyone with an iq less than 90

@Timcast I'm not sure if you've been asked this before but what are your thoughts on Blackstone's Formulation with regards to sexual assault cases?

In the case of a legitimate sexual assault claim would the accuser not suffer if the accused goes free? Not to mention the possibility of repeat offences. The accuser would also be called a liar and insulted based on that too.

What's the alternative? Sent a person to jail based on accusation alone? Blackstone's formulation is not to protect the majority but to protect the minority from the majority. I don't think most people agree that lynch mobs are good even if they get the victim right part of the time.

^

@AmamiRiku let me ask you this. What constitutes 'legitimate' as in it actually happened or that there is evidence to prove it did.

I'd say legitimate would mean it actually happened.
That's a fair point tbh, there's really no alternative. Didn't really think about alternatives. I mean, my main gripe these days is regarding lynch mobs on both sides (Mobs that insult both the accuser and the accused).

And I guess sexual assault being so hard to prove only worsens the issue

Sexual assault, unfortunately, has an aspect of subjectivity. Even in cases of rape, a lot of times the best "evidence" you have is that some form of sex act occurred. Which, if an act occurred and there is solid proof that it occurred, if the victim says it was sexual harassment or assault, then the only way to prove it was not is to find evidence to change the context to prove the victim is lying.

for example, was it mattress girl?, there was some college student accused by another student of rape. There was plenty of evidence that the event did happen. However, it was latter shown by pulling facebook and text messages that the event that occurred was consensual. more over, she was hounding him for more after the event occurred. and it was only after he refused her that she claimed rape.

so, if you cannot prove outside context, and all you have is that an event happened

do you assume innocence? do you assume guilt?

We could go the shiria law way, and punish the woman for no longer being pure.

There's a concept called the "burden of proof" that must be fulfilled for any legal action to take hold. Rape is a sketchy gray area, but we need to keep 3 things in mind about rape cases. 1, the burden of proof in any dispute falls on the person making an active claim, not the person being claimed against. 2, because of the previous point, the defendant defaults to "not guilty" until sufficient evidence is provided to make them guilty in the eyes of a court. 3, our legal system is not a representation of what happened or a definitive authority on history, it is simply a mediator for disputes based on quantifiable evidence. With this in mind, a "not guilty" verdict does not make the accuser a liar, nor does a "guilty" verdict make the defendant a perpetrator, it simply means that evidence provided was either sufficient or insufficient to result in a legal intervention. Normally this aligns with reality, but it won't always.

Hey guys... wanna talk about World War 3 predictions?

Sure. I predict it won't happen.

Nevermind, the slowmode timer is WAY too high for my liking...

Yeah, debates are waaay more fun when you don't have the time to think about your response. :v

Take it to free for all

WW3 will be Civil War in Europe, native Population vs. Muslim Caliphate Insurgents

And amerixa and elsewhere will be dragged in as a result

Israel vs islamic militants will also draw in Brazil

My work requires me to constantly google things. Most jobs in the future will be like that. Free college is a good thing.