i'm still working on my reply to the guy.

@Salacious Swanky Cat I agree suicide is wrong, but hear me out:

Here in AU where guns have essentially been banned since 1996, suicide _by other means_ has increased

The most popular being walking on the freeway/train tracks and fucking up the lives of millions for a day, and the life of some poor train/truck/car driver for eternity

@Shadows let us review it.

And gonna be honest here, only reason I bring it up out of nowhere is that’s essentially what happened yesterday - apparently some guy walked out onto the freeway, got hit by a car, then a semi; meanwhile, the semi’s attempts to break caused both of its trailers to career off-course and ended up blocking all four lanes of the inbound, subsequently causing further crashes, finally ending up in a pile-up that caused the cops to close off about 5 km (about 2.5 miles?) of freeway

Stephen Hicks' podcast has been launched.

@Deleted User if you haven't check out the video i posted about suicide, it is also from Doc :)

@Deleted User I get that, but that’s more of a call to improve mental health outreach. The AU government is wasting money on woman’s issues. They could spend it on improving mental health outreach.

@Salacious Swanky Cat not sure if you can review it well, i am trying to keep the context of what he is saying in my post, but you would still need to read his reply to me to understand some of it.

Eh... there’s already enough time spent on mental health issues here, I feel

@Shadows Already read it.

I just think there isn’t any persuading someone who’s made up his/her mind, and in that case, wouldn’t it be better to just have it done in private?

Well, that still happens. You can’t dictate how they commit suicide.

Mmmm

@Salacious Swanky Cat I have Faith Goldy closing in on the Toronto Mayor

Neat

Btw didn't hear from matt but thanks for the email

I should have superchated him last night.

She may win?

btw we launched another podcast now that the Quiggin Report is all over the news here. Open College with Dr. Stephen R.C. Hicks #1 - Free Speech; Why The Philosophy Matters
https://soundcloud.com/opencollegepodcast/open-college-1-free-speech

She has a chance. We'll see. another media conglomerate refuses to run our commercials

It seems to be making our campaign more popular. Our lawyers are in court right now

Cool

done, so its a little long, should i just post it? @Salacious Swanky Cat

Where is it?

i didn't submit it yet, you asked to review it heh

Yeah. I’ll read it.

Thoughts in the Crossfire Thank you for the reply, i appreciate you listening to other views.
Now, it matters not if she is lying or telling the truth in our system. What matters is what she can Prove.
I gave you an example of calling someone racist, should a person be fired or not hired merely because of an unproven accusation? If no one can prove a claim, our system does not default to believe the accuser (sadly this is not always true, but that is how are system is meant to work).

So, i want to go over a few problems with your comment, well trying not to take away context.
*confirming Kavanaugh sets a precedent that someone can get through to the supreme court despite a very significant chance they have previously sexually assaulted someone*
The "very significant chance" is just your feelings of the matter, not objective fact.

*This is not a defamation case.*
Well, that's not what you say later on
*If he didn't sexually assault Ford and she's lying about it, it is certainly a terrible thing that he has been defamed as such*

*his reputation is frankly less significant than the precedent this would set.*
What about this isn't about his reputation? If no one has proof of anything and His background was vetted over and over and over by both sides, without these accusations he was being confirmed anyway.

*No. A claim destroying a man's reputation does not magically turn it into a legal matter.*
So how in our system do you think we handle accusations of crimes or criminal behavior?
What do we give a persons for their ability to address accusations of serious crimes?
So far the only thing you are claiming is "listen and if it sounds true to you, believe", but maybe this isn't what you are saying, i could be wrong.
What does this do for a innocent people or at least people not found guilty? They can lose there job, big deal right? Well, that's not all, they can lose there ability to get further jobs, and anyone in society that knows about this case can hound or shun said person (and whole family can be troubled). All from accusations, not proof. So we take these things to court in an attempt to prove innocence or guilt. And well it wasn't in count, that's what happened with the last FBI investigation allowing him to become a new Justice, this will not change.

I understand your worry the precedent this sets if what happened to Ford to be true (even tho i disagree). But the precedent you are asking for is FAR greater then you are worried about and will damage our system even further. As people will start to lose faith in the process of appointing Justices to the Supreme Court if all it takes is mere accusations (without evidence).
I can only hope you rethink this stance you have taken.

Ok. That is long. Lol

A couple of points. The guy is so bent on what precedent it sets. He doesn’t realize what not nominating Bret does: it sets the precedent that unsubstantiated allegations automatically invalidates someone for office. In that case, Hillary shouldn’t have fun for president. He can’t remain consistent with that logic if he doesn’t agree with that point. The result of this precedent is that allegations can become politically weaponized to invalidate potential candidates. (Like it was done to Bret)

On Bret, he pretty much assumes he’s guilty. What’s his standard of evidence there? Why should we believe ford when she can’t remember anything else and nobody corroborated her allegation? The reason why it became a trial is because this was the basis for whether or not Bret should be nominated. You can’t change the rules of the game to get what you want. Seriously, if it’s a job interview why have an fbi investigation? That pretty much defeats his point there. Also, if the logic is ‘I don’t want a potential sexual harasser on the Supreme Court’ how does it suddenly become ok for one to be a federal judge?

Well, the only reason i didn't link the "job" interview part with the fbi investigations (even tho its wrong to view it merely as that), is because that's normal when seeking these high positions.

Well yeah, but this investigation happened specifically to address this claim.

The last one yes.

Right. The other, like 5 or something, background checks weren’t good enough to the left.

Don’t give them any ground in a debate. This final investigation was specifically to vet fords claim. That renders the whole job interview point moot.

I can give some ground that it is a job interview, because it partly is. Where they are wrong, is that its merely that, as accusations of crimes or criminal behavior bring legal recourse.

Ok. I’d definitely make the point that his logic invalidates Hillary from the presidency.

I’m saying the investigation renders the point moot because it pretty much was a trial.

I don't know much about this person, so i don't know if he is a "Devil lady" woops i mean Hillary guy.

If he’s a Hillary supporter it makes the inconsistency in his logic stand out.