The idea of parole is based entirely on the notion that people can change. I don’t know if Chapman’s changed, and I don’t know what evidence there is that he’s changed. But what never changes, what can’t change, is the severity of the crime committed. Using that as a guide for length of imprisonment isn’t constructive.
aikimoe
aikimoe
recognitions has merely adopted a philosophy - “believe all accusations” - which requires the very least amount of intellectual and moral fortitude, while providing a quick & easy route to feeling superior to strangers.
Fear not, for you will know the answer before you die!
Funny, I was entranced through every wildly entertaining minute of it!
I disagree. And I don’t think it’s constructive to apply negative labels to people simply for having different opinions on how to solve a problem. Divining intent is even less helpful.
To be fair, there are also non-racist libertarians who think the free market will sort out racism, and libertarians who concede the necessity of laws prohibiting racial discrimination. It really is a very mixed bag.
I’m not a libertarian, but I’ve learned that there are many different kinds, from Libertarian Party loonies to downright sensible “liberaltarians.” The two most visible (on the cable chat shows, anyhow), Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie (of Reason Magazine) are both very vocal in their disdain for Republicans and all…
“...by and large, the system works” only serves to raise the question, “works to do what?”
I didn’t like Rock’s jokes about bullying either, but to wish severe emotional pain on a child so that someone might (just maybe) agree with you about the severity of the problem (of children experiencing severe emotional pain) is a strange way to signal your compassion for children.
“The Hobbit movies are bad, by any stretch of the imagination,” isn’t just a questionable assertion, it’s a bad sentence. The phrase, “by any stretch of the imagination,” works when accompanying a negative (e.g. “The old woman wasn’t a physical threat, by any stretch of the imagination.”)
The court documents consist only of opinions from the judge and the prosecutor, who declined to prosecute Allen (a completely amoral act, if he thought Allen was guilty). There are no professional investigations that found evidence indicating Allen’s guilt.
I’d imagine the things I’m “flat out wrong” about are all the things I’m not “cherry picking” that you’ve yet to mention.
We have an accusation, and we have things other than the accusation. I’m considering all those things when I assert that it’s reasonable to doubt the veracity of the accusation.
I’m not so much a Woody Allen apologist (I’ve only enjoyed one or two of the movies he’s made in the last 20 years, and I don’t like the reedy tone in his clarinet playing), so much as I think, as a liberal, it’s important to have strong evidence before judging a person to have done a such a terrible thing. Making…
Yes, we know. It’s going to be okay, we all know how you feel.
Those are statements of his belief. I was responding to the idea that he’d ever investigate the matter as well as he’s investigated these other matters. I could be wrong, of course, but I don’t think he will, for the reasons I listed.
I think he would have, if there was more than one accuser; or if his brother hadn’t recently accused their mother of physical and emotional abuse, while remembering the day in question quite differently than Dylan; or if there hadn’t been 2 professional investigations that found reasons to disbelieve the accusation…
That you don’t think people grow that much indicates that you haven’t met enough people.
When you’re older and you realize how very stupid it was for you to suggest that you can’t really grow as a person after a certain age, you’ll realize you’ve grown as a person.