zeke5123a
20hr ago
Sure. I agree that’s what they think. I believe them to be wrongheaded and their logic leads to all crime being unpunished as a mental health issue.
zeke5123a
1d ago
I’d favor shorter prison sentences combined with whipping. Continued crimes then leads to executions.
zeke5123a
1d ago
I don’t think the women were correct at all and the idea @it’s just the laws fault” is not correct. Again I think people are short cutting NGRI to “was Clancy in her right mind.”
The standard is not “was she crazy.” The standard is did she know what she was doing was against the law and did she have the capacity not to do the act. There is ample evidence she knew what she was doing was not legal and that she had the capacity to not act.
Moreover the standard beyond a reasonable doubt is not 99.9%. It is a high standard yes, but it leaves room for small doubt. The preplanned murder of kids showed control of faculties and an attempt to hide the attempt. The phone call that interrupted the event also shows that. Is there a 5% chance she somehow was super crazy but still tactically rational? Maybe. But 95% sure is sure enough to convict.
zeke5123a
1d ago
I just don’t see how preexisting intrusive thoughts and planned murder don’t get people to 10:1 here.
zeke5123a
2d ago
Sure. I think the big problem is claimed expertise when there is none. Not sure for example that a nurse is an expert in the pharmacology of different drugs depending on their dosage.
zeke5123a
2d ago
I guess it would show that Allah was not powerful if the American government could destroy islams holiest site.
zeke5123a
2d ago
What do you interpret “beyond a reasonable doubt” to mean? What’s the percentage odds?
zeke5123a
2d ago
Except you know I stated what the standard was. Binion is an idiot by the way.
None of what you said is relevant. Her harming herself is consistent with being overwhelmed; murder suicide is pretty common. As already explained, expert witnesses aren’t dowry because the field is bunk. Moreover, her being mentally unwell is not the question. Of course she was mentally unwell. That isn’t the standard. The standard is could she control her actions / did she know they were not compatible with the law.
Finally the toxicology report showed she had small amounts of drugs in her system.
zeke5123a
2d ago
That’s a bit different. It is common knowledge that penises don’t shoot bullets. But toxicology reports and their implications are not common knowledge.
The one juror put herself up as an expert but one that was not able to be cross examined.
zeke5123a
2d ago
-
There are no true experts—the psych field is a mess scientifically and predisposed to view everything aberrant as mental illness.
-
The legal experts expected a hung jury in large part because of the support for Clancy.
-
It is really hard to look at the facts and not get to beyond reasonable doubt. To explicate:
A. The standard is that Clancy either didn’t know what she was doing was criminal or she was incapable of not engaging in the activity.
B. The evidence is:
I. Clancy had thoughts of harming her kid for awhile. II. Clancy planned out her murder if the kids including making sure the husband was out of the house. III. Clancy in the middle of the murder spree took a call from her husband and was not demonstrating any signs of craziness. IV. Clancy only heard a voice allegedly once and only once.
C. So here we see that she had desires to commit the crime previously and was able to not commit the crime.
D. The defense would have to make the argument that she had a mental break (instead of just fighting off the intrusive thoughts) that means she either no longer knew it was wrong or lacked the capacity to not commit the act.
E. But the defense has a problem. She acted with forethought before the murders. So she was able to deter the compulsion to murder for a time and was trying to hide it suggesting she knew it was wrong. Also the planning indicates she still retained some thinking (ie didn’t have a full break with reality). While there is an argument that in very abnormal situations crazy people can remain perfectly rational in their actions towards their crazy goals, the standard is beyond reasonable doubt; not beyond any doubt.
F. But to make it even worse, the phone call that interrupted the murders seems to again undercut that she was incapable.
G. So here the defense has to argue this wasn’t a continuation of her prior ideations AND that notwithstanding her tactical rationality both before and during the murders she didn’t know what she was doing or could not control her actions.
H. Add to that the oddity of hearing the voice once and only once (pretty convenient).
I. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. The common example is better ten guilty go free than one innocent go to jail. That suggests about a 90% certainty.
J. Given these facts, it is really hard to say there is more than 10% doubt that Clancy could not control her actions or didn’t know they were wrong
zeke5123a
3d ago
-
I give zero credence to what ChatGPT says as it is designed to result in a political neutral response regardless on what’s merited.
-
Saying “he is just talking about a partnership” is absurd when he is talking about a boot on a neck.
You are a troll
Typical—first you never explained what you think it meant (and never did in your OP).
Clearly Zohran is suggesting there is strong influence by IDF to encourage police brutality. You can quibble on the margins but the core of the claim is bs conspiratorial thinking.
And now you’ve trolled your way to numerous other posts instead of just being direct to start with.
zeke5123a
3d ago
And here is your shtick — Zohran says something crazy conspiratorial and you try to argue around it.
What do you think Zohran meant by the IDF laced the boot on your neck? Don’t dance. Don’t pull a Darwin.
zeke5123a
4d ago
I think you are ignoring the costs of working, the marginal tax rate of working, and the quality of life differences for SAHM.
My wife was a teacher. When she ran the math with our first kid (and the quality of childcare she wanted) working only came out ahead by about 10k. She made the decision the 10k wasn’t worth it.
zeke5123a
4d ago
It goes beyond this. One societal problem wr have is atomization and the breakdown of community. If you encourage more SAHM naturally they will form more community. If you are the only SAHM in the neighborhood it will be a bit lonely. But if every third house is a SAHM you’ll probably start to build relationships with the other SAHMs. Timmy will play with Samantha and the moms will chat. Maybe Alice watches Samantha whilst Bianca has to run an errand. Bianca returns the favor. Over time, community is built.
zeke5123a
4d ago
A leech is someone who takes from others in a negative sum way.
The whole theory here is that SAHM creates positive sum outcomes (eg better kids, perhaps more kids, better communities, husbands who are more focused to earn more money). Thus not leeches.
zeke5123a
4d ago
I don’t think they can change the welfare cliff but the easy solution is simply to phase out the welfare so the marginal tax rate isn’t too bad.
zeke5123a
4d ago
It also freed up the non working spouse to do more non paid but valuable work (eg make meals, build community)
zeke5123a
4d ago
There is also a presumption that taking care of kids is the only output. A SAHM can help build a community especially if there is a critical mass
zeke5123a
4d ago
I think one reason SAHM is hard is it’s a minority choice. As a result, there is almost a prisoner’s dilemma where if both Alice and Susie stayed home, each would like it more but if only one stays home it’s isolating.
Arguably getting more women to stay home increases the happiness of each SAHM.
I think it isn’t white supremacist per se but a belief that culture and attitudes are in part inherited (probably both via nature and nurture).
Thus, white people writ large and Western Europeans more specifically may want to keep their culture because (1) it is familiar and (2) it has on the whole been one of the better cultures.
Now that doesn’t mean that aren’t other good cultures. For example, Japan and China have achieved a lot. I wouldn’t want to live in such cultures but it isn’t obvious they are overall worse and in some ways (but not all) are clearly better.
But some cultures are seemingly objectively inferior and/or some cultures have a hard timing blending. Indian culture seems to prioritize clannish behavior that prioritizes Indians at the cost of whites.
I know this is all generalities and I’m sure if we dug in at each premise there would be objections etc. But this is, in broad strokes, why I think reversing immigration is generally good while at the same time preserving some degree of immigration from populations with cultures that are on par with the western cultures and can blend well if numbers are small enough.
More options
Context Copy link