Noting that Brock Turner was expelled (and actually banned for life from setting foot on campus, which is the most a university can do) is a clear indicator of someone who defends Turner. Logic isn’t your strong suit, is it?

“Why are you all over this article basically saying Stanford has done what they are supposed to so what’s the big deal.”
I don’t think you actually read my comments

of course we know it was all bluster and not something to take any more seriously than North Korea’s constant threats of war. But in pure terms of military superiority there are few that can compete with Israel (funded by us of course).

The issue with the UN resolution wasn’t a two state solution it was the declaration that East Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory”

“Looking forward to hear how Israel is planning on prosecuting that one” If it were a real threat, I imagine Israel has a much stronger military than NZ

Stanford doesn’t have a mascot, so I guess the position is available.

Brock Turner was expelled even though his criminal trial was a sham. So I don’t think it is necessarily true that he wouldn’t be expelled. Sadly, at this stage the odds of a criminal prosecution succeeding are slim to none given the elapsed time.

Does anyone disagree that someone who is a rapist should be punished? The problem is how do you create a procedure that determines that someone is a rapist that comports with our societal and legal view of due process.

Who they expelled. I don’t know if the school is purposefully protecting assailants, if they simply can’t construct an administrative process that results in fair outcomes, or if it is just impossible for a university to investigate criminal activities with any degree of confidence. It is a lose lose situation all…

are there witnesses? Does the assaulted professor have physical injuries that are documented? Is there other evidence to indicate the assault occurred and that the accused was the perpetrator? The (very unfortunate) problem with sexual assault is that there usually are no witnesses, there is no reason to give one…

There are a number of competing factors at play. You are focusing on the psychological impact of transitioning pre vs. post puberty. That is a valid concern that I have empathy for. However, I think there are a number of competing concerns when you are talking about people under age 12 that should not be discounted…

Some may believe that a teenager does not have the ability to make an informed decision about something of such far reaching consequence.

You mean there are published studies on the lack of harm?

Is there any scientific basis for determining that it is safe to “halt puberty” It may be a byproduct of intense athletic training, but purposefully messing with body chemistry in to delay puberty could have many repercussions. I think it is dangerous. I also think hormone treatment before adulthood is dangerous…

Well then I guess you can’t eat any meat because none of the harvesting will actually satisfy your purported ethical standard. There is a huge amount of waste going on in each method of production. You are creating bright lines for an ideal standard where the reality doesn’t match. To the extent that so many parts are…

Though you could then ask why it matters if it is a byproduct or not? We aren’t like Native Americans using every part of the bison, there is a lot of waste with all animals being slaughtered. Particularly here in the US where we have an aversion to particular animal parts. I agree with the perception, but I don’t…

well, if it makes you feel better, the use of “said” is the real chalkboard nail scratcher...a legalese anachronism that just confuses lay people...and really just makes the writer look stupid to use that instead of “the”.

This is a fruit for men....lycopene is good for the prostate

Actually the language is necessary because it is based on court precedent that potentially would lead to inadvertent negative interpretations if omitted.

According to a Swedish documentary, the majority of Chinese down was from live plucking and not a by-product of meat production. This caused IKEA to cancel orders from China (at least at the time).