so your position is that stand your ground laws exist because government was not adequately prosecuting whatever crimes zimmerman believed he was preventing?

the law that says one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. i did not argue any stats. my point is stating 'statistically insignificant' falls short of the ideal of innocent until proven guilty. even single person should be afforded that and a rape accusation doesnt erase that

that doesnt happen in rape case. why would someone have to pay after losing in a matter against a rapist. unless youre speaking of civil suits for sexual harassment. even then most losing plaintiffs dont have to pay anything and when they do its usually very little. but thats across the board, sexual harassment or…

i wasnt comparing the two

im familiar with those figures. no good reason for how they know the rapes are underreported if they are underreported is given. i also dont understand what the conviction rate has to do with the issue? perhaps the convictions rates are low because many of the accusations are false? is you solution that we burn all…

a lot. i know a few boys who were to told to 'pee in me,' i.e. cum in her, by their relatives

why not address the point instead of hiding behind grammatical errors.

what support do you have for the thrust of your argument that 'eyewitness testimony isn't considered of primary important...when a woman is raped.' tons of cases, including those where the accused hs been wrongly jailed, have been decided solely on that point

it is both. just like freedom is speech is a legal doctrine, it also stemmed from a tradition outside of the law that allowed all comers to have their say. it's a good way to live, even if the law hasnt caught up yet.

never a good idea.

i know its favored but that wasnt the original posters point. he or she was claiming that religious groups somehow dont follow the law because they object to being told to give out contraceptives when it goes against thier ideals

US law says the government cannot force a religious institution to engage in certain acts they disagree with and are free to practice as they wish. thats why the learned judge decided as she did

where do you get any of that rubbish from? their abusive in real life? see nothing wrong with abuse towards women? are you insane. you're the only actually minimizing abuse towards men but have the audacity to say these men, who happen to disagree with you, are abusive in real life. madness

it would make no difference to me if it was run solely by women. especially if the product is not gender specific like social media

so what? you make it seem like it's some sort of right that when something is successful we should go about dividing it up according to whatever demographic we find suitable. the company was formed by men and while it would be nice if women (hispanic, blks, indian, etc) were involved in the formation of it, but…

so should the factories simply not open in those countries. would their lives be better without the jobs?

why should they have a woman? simply because its a successful company?

they are deemed birds of prey tho. i dont this is an ancient thread

did this site use to have a segment celebrating the thighs of jocks? why complain now when you elevate them

Feminist body shaming. Or is this street harassment. Rape culture or whatever. I mean you needs her opinion