Ah, classic sophistry. If you omit the actor, you can draw a bad conclusion and pretend you didn't know it was a bad one. But maybe I'm mistaken and you actually don't know the answer to your question. Why don't you read the article? It answers it.
orcrist
joined 2 years ago
We all know who the real criminals are. The people in uniforms with badges and guns, who love to target minorities, who lie every day of their lives, under oath and on the stand, and pretend they're not the bad guys because it was their coworker who did the horrible action, not them, they only stood by and watched.
Of course any death is sad. My heart goes out to both families. Also, if you want the problem to be solved, you start by locking up the dirty pigs, not by accusing the general public of ... checks notes ... understanding the current state of reality.
When the cops back the blue, when they lie and cheat to cover up their coworkers' misdeeds, they all become targets...
And look, my friend, this is old news. We have said for decades that either cops regulate themselves or they will be regulated by the people. Even now, this message is still falling on deaf ears.
You can define it that way, but the problem is that the authors of the article didn't give a definition. For example, I think they think the term means to do what's in your job description and contract. And they think that workers should be going above and beyond that. But if they were forced to spell it out, then people would ask why companies don't change the job description or contract, because obviously it's ridiculous to ask people to do what you didn't ask them to do.
"kills" ... This is still occurring, let's use the present tense.
Exactly. Workers are doing their jobs! Gasp!
Holy f***, God forbid making settings menus that actually get you to where you want to go, definitely wouldn't want to do that, much better to AI.
If you really want the whole thing to end, just confess. Say that you're the one who did it, then they can lock you up, you won't even need a trial.
What kind of human being would wish that a man gets killed for a crime he didn't even commit? That's really sad, and for you to blame it on your boredom, that's just horrible.
You know that they've selected a judge non randomly. It's safe to assume the judge is going to let this evidence in, but it's possible that the appeals court will overrule them. I'm sure the defense is hoping for the best and planning for the worst.
We don't even have to ask the experts. Just look at Japan that tried something similar in the past. Of course it was a complete failure... This is basic reality, right? Families that don't have money simply can't afford to raise a child even if they get a bit of cash at the start. Pay them more than a living wage if you want them to have kids.
You might be out of touch, but it depends on what you mean about approaching people. For example, it's perfectly reasonable to talk to anyone at all for a wide variety of reasons, including things related to your hobbies or your jobs or simply because you're waiting for the bus. Conversation is generally a safe thing to do with other human beings. If you are specifically avoiding conversations with people because they are women, then I think you should rethink your position.
Maybe your parents are asking you to start flirting with people, which is totally different from simply talking to them. If that's the topic, then it makes sense to be somewhat more careful about the time and place.
view more: next ›
What a terrible headline. All of us? No. Next.