Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway (Score 1) 305

The gay panic defense is generally invoked in cases where the guilt of the defendant is unquestionable, but only as a means to strengthen a more "traditional criminal law defense such as insanity, diminished capacity, provocation, or self-defense" and is not meant to provide justification of the crime on its own.[23] While using the gay panic defense to explain insanity has typically not been successful in winning a complete acquittal, diminished capacity, provocation, and self-defense have all been used successfully to reduce charges and sentences.[23] Historically, in US courts, use of the gay panic defense has not typically resulted the acquittal of the defendant; instead, the defendant was usually found guilty, but on lesser charges, or judges and juries may have cited homosexual solicitation as a mitigating factor, resulting in reduced culpability and sentences.[24] The most famous case in which this occurred was the "Jenny Jones" case, where Jonathan Schmitz was tried for the first-degree murder of Scott Amedure and was instead found guilty of the lesser offense of second-degree murder.[25]

Wikipedia - considering how liberal Wikipedia is, I'd expect them to call it out if "killing trans people is legal" were a real thing.

And apparently California is that 50th state.

Comment Re:um... (Score 1) 234

You call Russia an elected monarchy

Actually no, that was other posters; I just didn't argue the point.

I ask you to detail how elected monarchies are arguably a better definition than fascist dictatorships and you sidestep

No I didn't sidestep; I said that monarchies and dictatorships are a continuum, so I don't see that this argument means anything. Putin is rather authoritarian but he was elected so there's aspects of both ends.

Given that I'm the only one who clearly defined what my definition

Yeah, and I'm saying your definition is crap. The difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship isn't well-defined at all.

Comment Re:um... (Score 1) 234

Well, if we're going to get pedantic, "transitory" would also include ending at the heat death of the universe. You didn't use the word "all" but it seemed like a fair reading of your post.

"Elective Monarchies are a transitory state" has subject-verb agreement problems, too, but now I'm just being spiteful :)

Are you trying to say that all elective monarchies have a supposed similar political composition that Putin's Russia matches better than it does a fascist dictatorship? Because otherwise, the point you're attempting to make is excessively obscure.

This entire thread has wandered off into the weeds of arguing about hair-splitting terminology differences. I'm not seeing that you have a high road to stand on here, to mangle a few metaphors. What is the difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship? Plenty of kings have gained power by killing anybody who would oppose them. Monarchy can be put on a sliding scale between absolute and constitutional. . . . Heck, back in ancient Rome they called the guy they appointed leader "dictator," but these days aren't dictators required to seize power? Cf. terrorist vs. freedom fighter.

You started out with a good point but now there's a bunch of goalpost-moving going on. "it's a monarchy" "monarchies are just dictatorships" "what about elective ones" "those aren't real governments" "what about this counterexample" "go away"

Comment Re: um... (Score 1) 234

Yeah, the states not actually being required to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote is a little unsettling. It's crazy how much how the government works now vs. how it was originally intended to work has diverged over time.

I would kind of like to see a slapfight break out over the NPVIC. I imagine if they get close to the necessary threshold things will get interesting.

Slashdot Top Deals

Have you reconsidered a computer career?