Yeah, that makes it so much worse. My first impression was that they probably bought, pulled over, used and passed out. But the story now is that the male, at least, was definitely driving while impaired. Which if true - yeah, plaster his face online. I still feel kind of ambivalent about the woman, because her role…

But doesn’t that presume that the intent was to “help” in some way? I disagree; I think this picture was taken for shaming purposes, despite contentions to the contrary. But I’m not fully anti-shame. It certainly CAN spur change, although I don’t think that’s especially common. But I don’t have any issue with publicly…

True, but one can be really deeply into an addiction but still be able to refrain from things that directly place others at risk. There was no reason to place the child in the car with them and drive in that state. Like I said, I can feel for addicts and don’t support shaming them for being addicts. I go by actions.…

Silly me, I was under the impression that “not endangering the welfare of a child” was a basic law that applied to everybody. I guess addicts get exemptions now!

Except it kind of is. My BIL was a heroin addict. One day, very literally, he just said, “That’s it. I’m done.” And guess what? He was. He just opted to go through withdrawal (something that amazes me even now) and to the best of my knowledge, is clean today. Now, I think we can acknowledge the choice to use is not a…

But that’s not true. I’ve met people I’ve termed “responsible addicts.” They have addictions, but they would never, EVER, place another person - especially a child! - in harm’s way. They do not keep drugs where anybody else could get to them, they do not use and drive, etc. You sell people so short, thinking like…

Supposedly, they just inverted the last two numbers - so he's really 263 (allegedly). That would make more sense.

I know, I was pointing out that the article suggests that she invited him to Flint, which is erroneous. She invited him to use her church as a venue after he already announced his visit and was under the impression he was going to address the water crisis and the church's role in it - not attack Clinton.

That depends on what the shaming is for. For being an addict? I can’t support that. But these two shot up with a child in the car. Presumably, if the cops had not intervened, they would have been driving under the influence, placing the kid at risk. I would not be okay with it if they had photographed these two,…

But now you’re arguing two different points - you started with the premise that models are selected for their “attractiveness.” But now, you’re arguing that they are selected for their ability to sell clothing to women. So which is it? Because those two are at odds in plenty of ways. If the primary function of models…

I believe he announced of his own volition that he was going to Flint as part of his "African American outreach" and the local government had to scramble to find somebody with a venue willing to host him, and this pastor offered her church. The article kind of gives the impression that she reached out to him, which…

How is that even a defense? I am pretty sure they have rape in South Africa. I am pretty sure they have it everywhere. His error was not misunderstanding a fine intricacy of the law. His error was in fundamentally misunderstanding what rape actually is. And that is not dependent on your nation of origin. It's a pretty…

Do people not understand what rape actually is? Even if this woman had squeezed together with all the force she could muster, the whole point of rape is that the rapist can overpower her through threats, coercion, brute force, etc.

I would generally agree with you - it smacks of concerns about ableism, ageism, etc. I dislike the idea of medical privacy going out the window. HOWEVER, the main person who has made this an issue has been Donald Trump and his surrogates. They have promulgated the theory that Clinton is unfit for office if she is not…

You know, I am generally not somebody who cares about medical records, simply because I believe that it tends to be scaremongering. If he had not made a big deal of it, I would likely not care one whit.

If you're suffering after trauma, you need a therapist, not a lawyer. The judicial system is not there so you can work through your grief and personal anger. It's there to adjudicate meritorious claims. I know I sound harsh and I'm trying not to sound that way, but that is the truth. Grief does not grant you special…

Except I said pretty clearly that I offer the male argument merely as example. And you haven’t refuted my main point - that the media-proffered image of attractiveness is not synonymous with the actual parameters of “attractiveness” that the general population holds. In fact, as I pointed out, a majority segment of…

3 guesses as to their preferred candidate, and the first two don’t count?

Except did you miss the place where the jury determined that he, nor his company, were responsible for the damages in the first place? So now you’re basically arguing that a company should pay just, uh, because?

Except “upset” is not now, and never has been, an excuse to bring frivolous litigation into court. The court system is not your therapist, it is not your friend. That's harsh, but it's true. If anybody took advantage of the grieving, it was the plaintiffs' attorneys - not the defendants.