I never said it was your apologia. But its original context was for an apologia, which is why your claim that

Brock’s alleged suffering was not one of repentance, but was over the unpleasantness of the consequences.

See, this would be the bullshit of which I spoke: You’re well aware that it specifically WAS offered as an apologia for his actions—in the sense of attempting to argue for less of a punishment for them (as opposed to an explanation for them, which patently couldn’t make sense).

Oh, I’m listening—I’m just not caring. You’ve spouted bullshit. When called on said bullshit, you’ve tried to bullshit harder. It didn’t work, and you have, apparently, nothing more to offer. I’m sorry for you that all have to offer is bullshit. Perhaps a night’s rest will encourage you to rethink your poor choices…

So, to be clear: You start with an appeal authority. Then you move on to a demonstrably dishonest argument where you say “I also didn’t argue that judicial discretion was under fire.” Then you lied about what I said, purposefully strawmanning it. Then you use the tone trolling argument where, rather than addressing…

That’s a terrible argument for a murderer to make. The hypocrisy alone invalidates it without some other factor.

First, it’s dishonest to try to say that judicial discretion is under fire. “That’s a shitty reason” =/= “judges shouldn’t have discretion”, so that’s just absurd.

“He’s not fit for prison” has worked on judges. It’s never worked on victims, or the public, and I don’t think it should work on judges either. “I get upset at dealing with the consequences of the harm I caused, so I shouldn’t have to deal with them “ is, generally and specifically here, a pathetic and disgusting…

No, it’s 100% ridiculous to say “dealing with the consequences of his actions has bothered him, therefore there should be less consequences”. It’s a terrible argument, and is disrespectful of people who really have PTSD—remember that he wasn’t even sentenced yet, so this supposed PTSD was at the mere specter of…

You have brought things up and, as far as I can see, been pretty consistently told something akin to “yeah, I already knew that and discounted it”, so I don’t really see what “others” you’re referring to. You seem to be the one missing things, especially when you claim is not ridiculous of his dad to bring up the…

It is, however, entirely ridiculous to bring up said trauma as a reason to lighten his sentence, which was the context of the letter.

I’m trying to understand why people are mad at Cinemark—it looks like not only did they offer to settle (which they 100% shouldn’t have had to do), but they also let the plaintiffs drop out—only 4 of the original 40 plaintiffs are responsible. Those 4 were unreasonable. They were wrong. And I am sympathetic—their…

This show and Mystery Incorporated are go-to shows for me when I want to watch something.

Truth is only a defense to libel in the US, and she doesn’t live in the US, though

I, too, had a crisis and am now GF. Dairy Ican survive. ...in small doses. At least you aren’t also a vegetarian! I tell my partners at work “I can’t eat normal people food”. If you’re still having issues, have you looked into low FODMAP diets ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FODMAP) I haven’t looked deeply…

What is the “Something”, exactly, that causes you to think that? Is it the fact that I made an argument you don’t like, but aren’t capable of responding to? I’m genuinely curious. Because what it LOOKS like is that you’re an idiot I should just dismiss. I’ll have to ask my wife after I cook her dinner and do the…

Wait...I haven’t listened to the episode yet (been busy with stuff that doesn’t let me listen to my normal list o’ podcasts) but...he’s the selfish one?

Oh, okay. Everybody seemed to link it to the three step glitch.

Thanks for the explanation! So the argument is that before you could see that X Pokemon were within 1 footstep, and could use a boost then, as opposed to now, when there’s no way to know whether they’re 1 or 3 footsteps away?

Not every idea that’s a bad idea is necessarily unconstitutional.