One must wonder. There's certainly no shortage of individuals who think it's a great idea.
"And this is why only a small tiny fraction of rapes ever end up with someone ending up in jail. Your word vs hers", and without evidence, you can't throw someone in it.
Are you kidding? It is quite the opposite. The accusation alone creates a scandal that smears the name, image, and reputation of the accused while the accuser is kept anonymous, and heavens forbid the accused is famous it becomes a scandal the media guarantees they will never live down. Many prosecutions succeed based on "her word" alone, and even of the ones that don't, the stigma haunts the accused for the rest of their lives and the journalists that made a lot of noise about the accusation will make far less about the acquittal.
Mind you, I am not saying a victim's identity should not be protected, but either both should get privacy or both should have their names revealed. The way it stands now makes a false accusation entirely too potent.
In places like that there is an abundance of inexpensive garbage filled with very stimulating ingredients and an uphill battle towards the less available, more expensive, all-natural options. This is why there's a bizarre regulatory mess in South LA about curbing the number of fast food joints all packed into a concentrated area.
See in this video where the chef teaches some kids how to make home made breaded chicken breast, but they still find the McNugget more appealing. It reminds me of Dave Chappelle's old sketch about the rich kids having grape juice where he only knew "grape drink."
Agreed. Even if you're cynical about the odds of defeating it being slim, remember that your odds are guaranteed to be zero if you do nothing, and you never quite know what a less than zero value might count for. A few minutes to throw your two cents in shouldn't be too much to spare.
A classic on this topic.
High recidivism is good for shareholders in privatized prisons. This is a system that profits more from harsher sentences and more prisoners, not fewer.
If the disclaimers are present such an app could be a great start if the baby steps are taken first. With picture data the app can return a list of possible likely results, outputting a warning if some of the results involve harmful types. It might not be able to tell two very similar species apart, but it would be great for those who don't know anything at all.
If you're going to use the compassion angle, a 20 year old orangutan most likely has self awareness and memories. Can the same be said about what you're referencing?
There are in fact actual studies into the moral senses of animals. While they might not closely resemble human notions of morality, there is behavior in animals that roughly resembles it. For example, in a study in which two dogs were offered treats in exchange for pet tricks like handshakes or rolling over, they gave one dog a very juicy morsel of meat for a reward, and when the second dog was offered something dry and flavorless for doing the same trick, the dog turned its nose up at the reward. The lesson there is that dogs at least have a sense of fairness. I'm sure there's something to all those stories about pets alerting their owners to grave danger and things of the sort, and pet owners have some tales to tell as well.
While I'm not sure that's sufficient for going into this territory of "non-human persons", there is strong evidence animals are capable of emotions, compassion, and even morality.
This is a symptom of a number of problems including how much employment has become tied to Facebook, but in particular this seems to be the next level of enabling individuals to avoid responsibility for their own actions.
It ultimately seems like a lose-lose situation because the feminists are going to find an excuse to attack it whatever they do.
Hear hear. I noticed this a very long time ago. There are no winning moves and they like it that way. If there are no females they'll complain about the absence of females. If there are females and they're attractive, they're being objectified. If there are females and they're not playable or combatants, an awful video rant is made complaining that they're objects and property or something. Are there even official, coherent demands by the people who spend all their time griping about issues like this? Do they have an achievable goal post that isn't discriminatory and makes sense?
Even many years back GTA3 was given a hard time for it being possible to kill hookers after you got your health restored by them, and it was the same situation even then. If the player wanted to kill all the black guys on the street or all the women or all the males or whatever, that is their prerogative and a natural condition of having a diverse world and equal playing field-- it is every bit as possible that an NPC can kill you or you can kill them.
You're absolutely right. All African Americans that have no colored friends or associates whatsoever that they could possibly discuss these matters with, much less any ability to speculate why these things happen. It would never ever happen.
Officers generally shoot for the body first, and if the target isn't falling down quickly enough for their tastes they start going for the head. A bigger problem here is how quickly officers go for the lethal option. An even bigger problem than that is the environment in that town made the events that transpired a mess just waiting to happen.
It's all a matter of salience. Simple minded white skinned people see one black skinned person behaving poorly and assume they all behave poorly. Simple minded black skinned people get called out, criticized, or harmed in any way by white skinned people and assume racism. Throw in bad experiences getting robbed, assaulted, pulled over by the police, being treated in a condescending way, and these people grow polarized. When a fracturing issue like Trayvon or Michael Brown comes up, these people are going to see what they want to see, and the drama ensues.
It's also what we're seeing with the whole SJW vs MRA mess, really. People were hurt, people know someone who was hurt, people heard a story about someone who was really hurt, and now they're out to hurt back. So many people in these groups have either been swindled out of their belongings and child custody or they're been abused in one form or another or they've been unfairly judged.
And then the media will fan the flames because that draws the attention they seek.
You're quite correct, the use of flashlights impact weapons had become more and more frowned upon, likely due to an combination of abusive officers and pain compliance techniques making people (the ones watching I mean, but certainly the ones on the receiving end too) feel bad. Unfortunately in moving away from that option, an officer that has to choose between throwing his back out wrestling with someone and reaching for that gun is going to be doing a lot more killing. Plus the thing that just makes this all the worse are the current generation of police that want to play soldier with their counter-terrorism toys.