It only takes one guy to be that dumb. Imagine how dumb you have to be to vote for a guy who threatens a general - there are tens of millions of such people.
It’s almost like gutting the educational system in multiple states undermines a functioning republic and makes people more gullible… Nah, that’s crazy talk!
I’ll bet these companies throw everything under the sun into the theft bucket. That includes internal mishandling of inventory. They then exaggerate the costs for insurance claims. 
They still had the mens rea to defraud the state as false electors even if they were delusional enough to believe the election was fraudulent. They didn't believe they were the actual electors at any point.
Summary: There is a normal percentage of theft compared to previous years, but because of inflation the estimated dollar amounts are “unprecedented.” Please don’t ask about the unprecedented profits.
Clickbait headline articles need to be shocking sounding. Bonus points if they push the narrative that companies are good and us horrible peasant thieves stealing from them are bad.
i’m a christian and know the bible well. These types of actions do not match how Jesus instructed us to act. When asked by frustrated tax payers whether they should continue paying the unfair taxes, jesus looked at the coin, asked “who’s face is on the coin?” It was Caesar. And he said, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesars, and give to God what is God’s.”
You see, they thought he was going to affirm their desire to revolt and stop paying their taxes, because in their view, jesus was a rebel and of course he would support people rising up to collectively cut off the flow of tax money to the worst government the world had ever seen? No. Jesus said, no don’t do that. Just give it to them. Play the long game. Give up this battle, but win the war.
Similarly, when I as a christian am asked by another christian “shouldn’t we ban these books? they have sinful activity”…I say, no. let the books stay where they are. it’s a library. if what you believe is true, then mere pieces of paper with drawings and text in them should change nothing. Let God sort it out later. You just live your life.
Jesus was much more interested in the inner life of each person, and he made a specific point of telling people to mind their own business and get their own house in order before worrying about everyone else. He also was very mindful of sin, telling us to “run” from it, almost like harmful radiation. Don’t try to change it, don’t try to interact with it, don’t even try to fight it. Just run away, get away, whatever you have to do.
So perhaps Jesus teaching for parents worried about sinful activities in books, would be to take their kid out of school, and create their own school that doesn’t teach that. Which is why I support school vouchers. We as christians should at least be consistent, and our actions should match those of Jesus. These people out there pushing for more intervention, more laws, more authoritarian control towards a theocracy, are IMO not very christ-like. Christians already created the ultimate theocracy in the Catholic church and we all saw how that turned out. We should have learned our lessons from history, but instead people just repeat the same mistakes over and over. And that’s all people, not just christians.
children have the right to a proper education and we as society have a responsibility to provide it. Religious private schooling is a failure in that regard and should not be permitted, much less funded at the expense of public schools and the children who attend them. Voucher programs rob from the budget of already underfunded (supposedly) secular public schools
I don’t share your faith (or even really have one that’s got a name), but I respect your tone and the thought you’ve put into this.
I share the other commenter’s dislike of charter schools.
if what you believe is true, then mere pieces of paper with drawings and text in them should change nothing. Let God sort it out later. You just live your life.
This is largely what I believe. As long as the person isn’t hurting someone else, leave it to the higher power to sort it out. Asserting control over another’s life is actively in the way of their own life’s journey.
I don’t believe a book that benevolently presents a character that’s LGBTQ is going to change anyone’s gender identity or sexuality.
I was called “Wanda” in high school by some close friends because I didn’t act like the typical teenaged boy (read: I wasn’t being a jackass). I’m still a straight guy despite having that (friendly) nickname for a few years that was a totally different gender.
I trust the kids here to do the right thing for themselves. We don’t as adults need to limit their world view, especially teenagers; that just seems like a recipe for resentment. i.e. just leave the books alone, it’s not a problem that needs solving.
The governing board of a school district, a county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school shall not refuse to approve the use or prohibit the use of any textbook, instructional material, supplemental instructional material, or other curriculum for classroom instruction or any book or other resource in a school library on the basis that it includes a study of the role and contributions of any individual or group consistent with the requirements of Sections 51204.5 and 60040 [requiring the accurate portrayal of LGBT people and racial minorities], unless the study of the role and contributions violates Section 51501 or 60044 [prohibitions on materials that “reflect adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry”].
Letting people out/off early is a problem. From what I understand, Illinois has eliminated cash bail, which has made crime way worse.
Edit: This site has a huge problem with people being loud about things they know nothing about. I know people who live in Chicago who are an active part of their community and crime has gone up insanely. There are a bunch of emergency meetings about the significant increase in armed robbery and carjackings. Apparently to people on this site, the comfort and feelings of criminals matter more than innocent people who are just trying to get by in their own community.
This obsession with being soft on criminals is so backwards and fucked up. Anyone who defends this is delusional and a threat to a safe society.
Fox News is a logical falacy scapegoat for people who wants to disqualify someone else's opinion bc it doesn't align with yours. Everyone tunes out "fascist" and "Fox news" when they hear it. Saying it doesn't silence the opinions or make people's whose opinions do not align with yours go away. Quite the opposite.
I think that qualifies as a “yes I drank it straight from the fake news pipe and didn’t do any independent research to figure out whether it was actually true”
Fox News is a logical falacy scapegoat for people who want to disqualify someone else’s opinion just because it isn’t at all backed by facts or analysis. Proving that they’re objectively, measurably wrong doesn’t silence the opinions or make people’s whose opinions do not align with yours go away. Quite the opposite, we don’t care about the facts at all.
It doesn't follow your narrative, of course you're butthurt by it. Dunno why it's so popular to defend criminals nowadays but definitely shows the flawed mentality that's so pervasive
doesn’t follow your narrative, of course you’re butthurt by it.
What narrative? The entire idea of a rehabilitation based penal system has been native to the American justice system since we built our first prison.
Your narrative is a modern neocon revision of historical fact. It doesn’t follow a logic, it’s just an attempt to utilize the power of the state against anyone you hold prejudice against.
Dunno why it’s so popular to defend criminals nowadays
No one is defending individual criminals, were defending the American people. When you strip the rights away from fellow americans, you are stripping away your own rights.
Let’s say hypothetically you pass a bill that throws dangerous criminals away forever. What stops you from being labeled a dangerous criminal?
flawed mentality that’s so pervasive
Says the boy who thinks that keeping people in prison longer makes them less dangerous…
Bro, you're defending criminals. I'm not having a discussion with you because there's none to be had. Just by defending criminals you tell me all I need to know about your opinions.
I'm defending being a citizen who does not engage in violence, theft or crime in general. I absolutely think prioritizing those people's needs should be prioritized over those who engage in those acts. Why is defending that class of citizen so bad?
defending being a citizen who does not engage in violence, theft or crime in general.
Incarceration is inherently an act of violence. Subjecting someone to undue imprisonment is enacting more violence upon someone then an assault or any theft.
absolutely think prioritizing those people’s needs should be prioritized over those who engage in those acts.
They are the same people… rehabilitating people who engage in violent crime is done for the benefit of society, not the prisoner.
Why is defending that class of citizen so bad?
Because thats not a class of people? Every class of people engage with criminal behavior, it’s just the poor who can’t afford to buy “justice”.
Your problem is that you think criminal behavior is a product of self discipline or morality, when in reality it is a product of environment and circumstance. Your naive beliefs inhibits the very possibility that people can change or be rehabilitated. Tbh everything you’ve said just sounds like a thinly veiled dog whistle.
How are any of us helping victims? Are we talking about individually? If so, Im a healthcare worker at a children’s hospital. I am all too familiar with the needs of the abused.
If we are talking about how we can help as a citizen, what policies we could enact that would help? I honestly don’t think sequestering violent people away to an even more violent environment is going to be helpful in reducing violence.
Antisocial and violent behavior is learned behavior, these people are conditioned by their local environment and interpersonal relationships to believe that violence is a tool of command.
To actually reduce and prevent things like rape we need to reshape the environments of the most impoverished populations. We also need to pay attention the the mental well-being of our younger population, regardless to class or creed.
Because a lot of the people here never were the victim of a crime and think they never will be. Crime is something that happens “to others”. Especially sex crimes like rape is something people here feel especially apologetic for. Those poor rapists… I wonder why that is.
Oh for Christ’s sake. You need to educate yourself. The Illinois law took effect 10 days ago. Crime metrics for that period aren’t even available yet. You’re just making shit up, and not even convincingly. You can be better than this.
Yes. There are what the citizens are referring to as "armed caravans" driving around and assaulting pedestrians. Police officers have since stopped trying as hard since there are people filing lawsuits against the police, and it's also dangerous for them to be putting violent criminals away who will be out on the street within hours.
If you were a police officer tasked with chasing down and arresting violent criminals, would you risk your life for someone who was going to be released in several hours?
So not a single recent news story, or a link to police records showing an increase? Just a “trust me, I know a guy”?
The people who don’t trust facts and don’t ask for facts are a problem. They are the reason we have antivax. If you are truly friends with those people, maybe work on that with them. It sounds like they need help with reality.
Do you honestly think spending an extra 15 years surrounded by other violent criminals is going to reduce the chance of him re-offending?
Do you even know why people are being let out on parole early in the first place? It’s because we’ve been tougher on crime than any other wealthy nation in the world for the last 50 years, and now we have more prisoners than prison space.
If that’s you’re reasoning, why even bother locking them up? Why not argue to execute all criminals, if your only desire is too keep all those dangerous convicts out of society for as long as possible?
People disapprove of the death penalty because of the chance innocent men get killed. You can’t unkill someone. Thus the most logical solution is to contain them in a place where they can’t hurt anybody. You’re not calling out a contradiction, not everyone is a utilitarian. The purpose is to keep people on the street safe, how you deal with the criminal is secondary.
Might’ve taken this in good faith had I not checked your comment history to see you insisting all drag queens are a danger to children, so let’s just dress you down and block you real quick, mkay?
The point has been made in another reply to the initial comment that rehabilitation would still yield better results than incarceration for keeping the “people on the street” safe, as the only way incarceration is able to lower the number of “dangerous convicts” is by putting them in a cell for life. When rehabilitation is successful, the number of “dangerous criminals” can actually go down in a way that does not deprive those individuals from seeing trees for the rest of their lives.
Additionally, convicts absolutely can and do hurt people in prison, the people hurt just happen to be other convicts, not to mention the violence they often face from the people who run the place, who have a tendency to enter the field of incarceration with authoritarian personality types and the intent of mistreating or exploiting prisoners. All this disregarded, despite the fact that you acknowledge the possibility that some of those who end up in these facilities are innocents - the only category of person you are supposedly interested in protecting is not protected in these institutions as they currently exist.
There’s much more I could say about prisons to make this point, but what I’m saying is that prisons do not provide a neutral experience, they are not just people sitting in empty rooms experiencing nothing - they are places that generally leave people more damaged than when they came in, and often inflict that damage for years, in some cases for something as victimless as a marijuana charge. Thus, while rehabilitation has the potential to concretely improve society and the lives of people (y’know, the thing convicts are), incarceration as it currently exists can only hurt people and send them back out into society worse off than they were before. The only argument for it is to insist it is justified for doing so, by inventing a dynamic where “they,” strangers placed into prison, ALL present a danger to “us,” the “people on the street,” that they either cannot be fixed or we should not bother, and that whatever they get, they deserve. Maybe you can convince someone that’s true for a convicted rapist, but I think you’d have a harder time when it comes to victims of addiction, poverty, and/or an imperfect justice system.
Don't bother, friend. Attacking someone's character is a logical fallacy. When they go into your post history they have no defense.
There's something very, very odd with the Fediverse because there is a very high concentration of illogical, emotionally charged liberal bigots on this site.
This is a lot of words that doesn’t say much to me tbh. It’s straight up dishonest to pretend like “rehabilitation” will somehow keep people on the street safer than, ya know, locking up violent criminals where there literally isn’t a chance of them getting anyone. I’m talking about violent criminals and you go off on “what about people who got arrested for weed”
What are your thoughts on how to actually prevent crime? What is your plan for the victims? What should happen with the people who have been tortured, raped or killed by the criminals you care so much about? What about the children, parents, friends, loved ones of the victims?
The best way to keep dangerous criminals off the street is to rehabilitate the criminals… Or better yet, remove the economic environmental conditions that drive people to crime in the first place.
What’s your alternative? Are we just throwing anybody who gets in a bar fight in prison for the rest of their lives?
If your idea of “justice” worked America would already be the safest place on earth. Despite America only making up around 4% of the population we house 20% of the global prison population . If you’re ideology actually made us safe, don’t you think it would have worked by now?
And a man who gets in a drunken bar fight is not being violent or doing a crime?
I think there’s an ever so slight difference between punching someone in a bar fight, and murdering someone in cold blood.
When I asked if a drunk bar fight should land you in a jail cell forever, You said no.
Yep, because you shouldn’t go to jail forever.
Long time != forever.
So we established that it’s not the assault, as a bar fight involves criminally assaulting someone… so your argument hinges on rape alone?
Nope, it also hinges on violent assault too. We didn’t establish anything, you misread my comment and decided to go off of your own wrong interpretation.
So it is of your opinion that any woman who accuses a man of ignoring consent he should be jailed indefinitely?
Has the man been convicted of violent rape? Yes? Then yes!
think there’s an ever so slight difference between punching someone in a bar fight, and murdering someone in cold blood.
But weren’t we talking about violent criminals? I think your shifting your goal post there…
Yep, because you shouldn’t go to jail forever.
So you’re against putting people in prison forever, but you also want people locked away for an indiscriminately long time? Sounds like you don’t know what you want…
Nope, it also hinges on violent assault too. We didn’t establish anything, you misread my comment and decided to go off of your own wrong interpretation.
But a bar fight is a violent assault. You can’t have it both ways, you’re talking about laws, not vibes.
Has the man been convicted of violent rape? Yes? Then yes!
Ahh, so it has to be violent rape? But, it can’t just be violence, or just rape? You’re just being pedantic now.
But weren’t we talking about violent criminals? I think your shifting your goal post there…
Yep, but there’s a difference in the level of violence between punch somebody and murdering somebody. You’re just being pedantic now.
So you’re against putting people in prison forever, but you also want people locked away for an indiscriminately long time? Sounds like you don’t know what you want…
Not really. I want people who are violent to not have the chance to hurt innocent people again.
But a bar fight is a violent assault. You can’t have it both ways, you’re talking about laws, not vibes.
I can have it both way, by having different punishments for someone who punched somebody and for someone who stabbed somebody to death in cold blood. I see this is a difficult concept to you.
Ahh, so it has to be violent rape? But, it can’t just be violence, or just rape?
Yep, but there’s a difference in the level of violence between punch somebody and murdering somebody. You’re just being pedantic now.
Ahh, so you admit your statement was incorrect. Great.
So, now your claim is that violent murderers should be put in prison for long periods… which is redundant.
I want people who are violent to not have the chance to hurt innocent people again.
By putting them in prison until you personally decide they aren’t violent anymore?
can have it both way, by having different punishments for someone who punched somebody and for someone who stabbed somebody to death in cold blood. I see this is a difficult concept to you.
I fail to see how that’s any different to what were currently doing?
Nope, it can be rape, violent rape, or violence.
Ahh, so we’re walking back our claim now…how many times have you had to do that now?
Never said otherwise. Given how you’re making up every argument instead of actually reading mine, you really don’t need me here, you can just continue arguing with yourself. Have fun!
So, now your claim is that violent murderers should be put in prison for long periods… which is redundant.
This has always been my claim.
By putting them in prison until you personally decide they aren’t violent anymore?
Nope, until/if they’re actually not violent anymore.
I fail to see how that’s any different to what were currently doing?
Well, we’re letting them out way too early. Like this case proves.
Ahh, so we’re walking back our claim now…how many times have you had to do that now?
Exactly 0 times. It’s just you can’t read and understand simple arguments, so you think they’re changing.
Lol and your version of the law is?
Sylvester Stallone in the 1995 movie ‘Judge Dredd’.
Never said otherwise. Given how you’re making up every argument instead of actually reading mine, you really don’t need me here, you can just continue arguing with yourself. Have fun!
Lol, you have already admitted to writing knowingly false statements. You’ve changed your claim like 4-5 times by now.
has always been my claim.
Directly conflicts with “Never said otherwise.”.
Nope, until/if they’re actually not violent anymore.
So you have a violence predicting precognition? You do know having a clean record while serving is already part of the parole process, right?
Well, we’re letting them out way too early. Like this case proves.
You’re utilizing a logical fallacy so fucking old the Romans had a name for it “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.
How do you determine when they get out, by how violent they are? How do you tell how violent they are?
Exactly 0 times. It’s just you can’t read and understand simple arguments, so you think they’re changing.
“Ahh, so you admit your statement was incorrect.” “Never said otherwise.”
Sylvester Stallone in the 1995 movie ‘Judge Dredd’.
I believe that to be true, but the person I was talking to predicated it differently. I was trying to see if he was preconditioning his claim in a way that would excuse behavior often seen as acceptable by conservative values.
Someone who tortures (including rape) or kills other people should not be allowed back into society, in my opinion. We can’t just continue to tell all the victims “Ah well, shit happens!”
Someone who tortures (including rape) or kills other people
That is a more specific stance than “all violent criminal” that op claimed. And if we had a perfect Justice system that could accurately determine guilt with absolute certainty, I would be more likely to agree with you.
However, our penal system has been utilized as weapon to oppression minority and political oppression for around 150 years now, and an indefinite sentence is simply a a worse slower execution.
DEMONRAT CITIES HAVE PROSECUTORS LINING UP TO FREE MURDERERS AND EVERYONE ON THE STREET IS BEING MUGGED AND DRUGGED ITS TIME FOR ALL PATRIOTS TO MOVE TO RED STATES AND ELECT FREEDOM LOVING TRUMP AND HIS HAMBERDER WALL
There was a Target that reported every theft in SF for a month. It doubled the crime stats for the city, so the city told them to stop reporting theft.
Nations with the strictest drug laws have the fewest users.
Same with nations that have laws against homosexuality. Fewer people are openly gay in them.
I know you want to live in your fantasy world where nobody is deterred by punishment, but that’s just not the world we live in.
It’s sad this needs to be explained to so many of you, but that’s what makes this a microcosm. The majority opinion here is not representative of the world as a whole, and in many times shouldn’t be.
Yep, just like Florida had the lowest covid rates in the country.
Oh, but that was because they stopped testing… hmm, but people not openly using drugs in countries that heavily criminalize them surely aren’t just doing them in secret.
Uhh, no. You’re trying to use an analogy to distract from the topic at hand. It’s not a 1:1 representation of the situation we’re talking about, but serves as a good tool to debate the accuracy of the analogy instead of the actual subject.
Do you disagree that: “Nations with the strictest drug laws have the fewest users” or “nations that have laws against homosexuality. Fewer people are openly gay in them.”
No need to bring florida into this, unless you’re relying on mental gymnastics. Hence my comment about fantasy worlds.
There’s every reason to bring the Florida example into this, Mr. Debatelord.
Covid rates went down in Florida because they stopped testing, not because they didn’t have covid.
Very relevant when trying to suggest that punitive action towards gay people/ drug users result in less of both. The answer is, no they don’t, they just hide. That does not make the punishment “effective”. What you’re saying is like saying that they’re punished so they just magically aren’t gay anymore lmao.
Those nations may have people who are better at hiding their drug use or homosexuality, or more people repressing it, but that’s NOT a good thing.
They’re are crimes worth being more strict about, and crimes that shouldn’t even be crimes.
I’ll also note that being more strict about a given crime doesn’t necessarily mean just throwing them in a cell and throwing away the key. If the only response you have for someone doing something wrong is punishment, you aren’t actually going to make anything better for anyone.
Proper, and actually effective policies to deter most crimes (that are actually worth being crimes ) MUST include supporting education, public health, (both physical and mental), economic strength and balance, as well as supporting and rehabilitating those convicted of crimes, and researching the REAL factors that drive crime whether they be economic, environmental, or otherwise. For example, in the years since we stopped using leaded gas in cars, there has been a significant decrease in certain types of violent crime because we’re no longer poisoning our brains with lead. Countries with good sex education and safe, legal abortions also tend to see statistically noticable reductions in crime.
For example, after Portugal decriminalized drug use, side from the obvious reduction in drug related prison population, drug overdose deaths went down, and remain below EU average. And to this day Portugal has one of the lowest rates of drug use in the EU. So what’s the point of being’strict’ on the crime of drug use???
Money spent fighting the inequalities and injustices that lead to crimes is far more effective than money spent in punishment.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.