Comment Re:faceboo cannot arrest, imprison, rape, kill (Score 1) 75
aardvark's law: In any group of people, the majority are idiots.
Newsflash: stupid people use facebook. That doesn't make Facebook responsible for what they do.
aardvark's law: In any group of people, the majority are idiots.
Newsflash: stupid people use facebook. That doesn't make Facebook responsible for what they do.
Why don't you learn how to english.
yeah, it's not you. It's not the reader. It's the media.
What a morooon.
If there's a lot of documentation, interpret it like your favorite religious text.
So it's got some pretty good ideas, but nobody really pays attention to what it says?
Describes the documentation for most projects I've worked on.
Popular demand? Who would want to read this inane blathering?
Oh the irony. Now back into the basement, you have some glue to sniff.
How predictable. What's next, a link to a xkcd "comic"? You pea-brain.
I guess you're a fan of that crap-pile show too. Here's a tip for you: stfu you miserable, dripping cunt.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/
I guess I was wrong in that he did "say something about putting homosexuals to death." So you get a point for that. However, your original claim was that many of them "would have [homosexuals] put to death if they could," which was really what I was trying to get at. If it wasn't obvious to the reader of his statement, he did later issue a statement clarifying that he does not call for putting homosexuals to death, so he still doesn't qualify.
Moving on to the second implication, which is that courts cannot weigh your silence in determining the likelihood of your guilt. This goes against the common sense that you would use in your everyday life. If you had two roommates, you knew one of them stole your laptop, you asked both where they were at the time, and one of them immediately told you where they were (giving a story that their friends could corroborate), and other refused even to answer "Yes" or "No" to the question of whether they stole it, what would you think? I'm not saying that a person's silence should ever be considered proof of guilt, but the likelihood of guilt is a probability question, which can be assessed using multiple factors, each of which individually might not be enough to prove guilt by itself. Is the second roommate's silence relevant to your estimation of their guilt? Of course it is. If you would use that factor in your own reasoning, why shouldn't a court? (And in fact, your silence can be considered relevant in a civil lawsuit, just not in a criminal case.)
Although his argument is interesting (worth at least thinking about more, although I'm not sure I agree with it), this scenario really doesn't prove his point. In his scenario, he knows that either Roommate #1 or Roommate #2 stole his laptop, and that Roommate #1 has presented evidence that he did not do it. Therefore, it is simply the process of elimination to determine that it was stolen by #2 (based on the probability of #1's evidence is solid). I can't see that #2's refusal to answer changes anything.
I'm having trouble coming up with a situation where refusal to answer a question would actually constitute legitimate evidence of someone's guilt or innocence. They all seem to come down to "innocent men have nothing to hide."
and diesel powered tools...
http://blog.makezine.com/2013/02/22/power-tools-retrofitted-for-the-amish/
Shut it you moron.
You're a moron.
wtf does that even mean?
If you are a homosexual and voting for republicans I can only say "I am Disappoint". Many of them believe you are sort of evil creature and would have you put to death if they could.
Really? Name me one elected Republican who has ever said anything about putting homosexuals to death. Just one.
You post a lot of stupid crap, but this comment has to take the cake for full-on idiotic.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
