u/VictoryFirst8421

“But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society.”

🧢 I voted CAP!

At best I would probably freeze up

The constitution of whatever republic hosts the system should be made good enough to allow any party, with any values, to participate. No human, no matter how evil, should be blocked from civic participation, and the government should be ran good enough to make citizens smart enough not to vote for them.

Oh I didn’t see “assisted” and was very confused about what banning it meant

I mean not inherently. The way it is done in the U.S. sucks. Like, there have been cases where people weren’t even deported to their own countries they came from. And inhumane conditions like very cramped conditions, treating them as subhuman, not giving them trials. Stuff like that.

As long as she was as polite about it as she shows in the panels (other than 4) it’s not a problem.

I mean putting “serial murder” on it just kinda makes it the obvious answer. Like, obviously, killing 10 people is gonna be the worst. “Tortures” is also ambiguous. Like, how much torture? Getting water boarded a single time? Getting waterboardered 200 times? Getting tortured for 10 years being water boarded 5 times every day would be so much worse than dying. And why put “murder/serial murder” and then a “rape” option but not “serial rape” along with it.

I’m not straight, but before I was out as gay I was discriminated for being, “straight,” I absolutely did suffer (despite being gay.) Anyone, even someone who is not systemically discriminated against can suffer. Hateful acts based on identity are evil, no matter how prevalent they are

No one wants to kill kids

Well maybe there are some child murderers, but basically everyone wants those people locked up. They are few and far between

If you don’t give a 6 month old respect just cause it can’t give it back, then you should never be a parent.

Thats easy

This is true. I experienced basically the same thing. Wasn’t out, and I was in a huge group with lots of people from all sorts, lots of gay people, multiple NB and trans people. Super diverse group. I was one of two “straight” (I wasn’t out) and then one member of the group discriminated and hated on me for being “straight” and almost the entire group piled on. Any minority in a group can be discriminated against, even if they are in the majority in the general population

Fat people trying to tell doctors it is “fatphobic” to bring up how unhealthy it is, is ridiculous. Genuine discrimination is immoral though

They mean like saying things that would be flirting if said to other people, but it’s said between people who know they are not being serious. Say you’re a straight guy, and you have a girlfriend, and you are, “flirting,” with your guy friends. Everyone knows there is nothing intimate going on, but possibly saying things that at face value seem intimate.

The answer to this question is that it isn’t necessarily cheating, but that during a relationship communication is key and if it makes your partner uncomfortable it should be communicated

Not taking this job

^{Rolled: Pay: $50 | Rate: Once Every 5 Years | Multiplier: None}

The car next to this woman also has their tire ON the line, which could be why she parked further over. Honestly this guy recording needs to buy a rope from Home Depot

The car to the left is literally ON THE LINE. This guy recording the video is a real asshole.

Never leaves the house + Makes 6 figures is gonna be hard to find. Maybe a YouTuber I suppose, but if you want someone making a lot of money, they probably need to go to work. And if you want them cooking and cleaning too (basically a house-husband) making loads of money is gonna be extremely difficult when they have loads of chores.

If she was on the opposite end she would visibly see that someone else walked into her car. So… all that is saying is, “if she could visibly see what happened with undeniable evidence she wouldn’t believe it.” Anyway, I’d like to see you attempt to prove that she is only doing it to try to benefit from it in court. Good luck, literally no way to prove it and not that she earnestly believes she was hit

In the United States we use, “innocent until proven guilty,” and, “prosecutor has the burden of proof.” So simply saying, “ehh we know she was incorrect, and she should have known,” won’t win you a court case. You need to prove malicious, lying, fraudulent, intent, and that is not gonna be possible for you in this case.

Also, you mention she walked into a, “stationary” car, but she believes the car WASN’T stationary. She believes the guy MOVED it.

Yeah I don’t trust the CEOs who run these companies to give the AIs good ethics. I think they will use the AIs to make even more profit instead of actually using it to help people. As for the environmental impact, it is real now, and a lot of people suffer from it (I.e. powering the data centers with non-renewable energy, using our clean drinking water, causing pollution, taking energy from the grid and raising energy prices for the common folk.)

These problems are so easy to fix though. All we would need is a couple nuclear power plants, and desalination plants. It’s honestly ridiculous our governments waste money on useless wars, or policing idiotic policies, rather than build desalination plants and nuclear plants, because we could of had free electricity and water for every house across the country if the money had been well spent, instead of wasted.

“We clearly have watched the video and see that she is wrong, so she magically gains the knowledge that we have because she has mind reading and knows all the knowledge everyone else has.” How can you not separate the knowledge WE have, which is watching this video, from the knowledge that SHE has (because she HASN’T seen this video.) we have information that she does NOT have. Being wrong is DIFFERENT than lying. Lying means you have to KNOW you were wrong when making the claim. Nowhere in the video does she watch this recording. So this video is kinda completely irrelevant. All she knows is she had her back turned and then she believes the car hit her while her back was turned. We know (because WE watched the video) that the car was not moving any of the time and she walked backwards into it, but she believes that the car moved forward into her. You need to separate the information WE have from the information available to HER at the time.

Yeah, but in this case (suing about fraudulent charges) you have the burden of proof, so you have the burden to prove it was intentionally lying and not just believing something that is wrong

She does not believe she initiated the contact. She believes she was hit

If they watched this video and still sued it would probably be considered fraudulent, as this is clear evidence she walked into him. But, let’s that that she did sue him after this, she definitely didn’t see the video after this guy drove away, so she would probably just say, “He didn’t show me this video, he drove away, so I assumed he was lying and he had actually driven into me and then drive away from the scene after hitting me”

So in her opinion he hit her and then fled the scene. Which is a genuine crime she might assume he did because he drove away instead of providing insurance. Like, you need to prove she intentionally lied when filling the report