Eh, liberals nowadays are much more likely to favor censorship than conservatives, which is ironic considering they're "liberal".

Also, it's Silicon Valley, liberals outnumber conservatives 10 to 1 so he's probably spot on with how he described them.

Brought to you by the "slippery slope is a fallacy" people.

Has any president in American history caused the American public to lose as much trust in the media as Trump?

Didn't like the guy much at all but loved how he exposed main stream media companies for what they really are nowadays.

Significant events in US history, such as the Abolitionist movement, women's rights, the Civil Rights era, et cetera, would not have been as easily accomplished without freedom of speech being defined the way it has been in the US.

The fact is, you can't have freedom of speech if your also not allowing people to engage in hateful speech, no matter what most "progressives" would tell you.

Every case of covid in an unvaccinated community is significant.

And now there's 6 more, all linked to the same fella. Looks like it was a superspreader event after all.

Free forever if if you use LibGen: https://libgen.rs/

I understand that mens rea should generally be present in crimes in order for convictions but eight years for doing what he did is itself insane.

Reading up on his background, I wonder if he just snapped and killed the guy out of anger for whatever reason and then started cannibalizing the corpse so that he could play the mental illness card at court.

If someone has an epileptic seizure or a diabetic goes into hypoglycemic shock whilst driving and gets into a head on collision and kills someone should they go to prison? They call it mental illness for a reason.

I’ve known people with epilepsy who were banned from driving due to this possibly. If they had driven and gotten a seizure and killed someone, they would have been driving with a reckless disregard for the safety of others, which is enough of a mens rea to form intention for some level of murder conviction.

It is likely this is largely true, even if not formally banned from driving, so the answer is probably yes to your hypothetical they should go to prison, or pulling the normative phrase out, likely would go to prison (subject to many mitigating factors).

Perhaps epilepsy was a bad choice. How about for cardiac arrest, stroke, or any number of undiagnosed medical conditions that could cause someone to create dangerous/fatal conditions outside of their control?

> They call it mental illness for a reason.

Even if we accept your premise that having a mental illness precludes one from taking responsibility for their actions, you still have to deal with the fact that they are a serious danger to society. One of the uses of prison is to take people who would otherwise murder and eat people and remove them from society, so that they can't do that.

I am making a moral argument, not a legal one.

I don't think he should be in jail, but he probably shouldn't be riding any more buses either.

Even if that's true, that's still well beyond a reasonable bound of sanity. Agreed that 8 years seems a bit light though, considering the notoriety of the crime.

Eight years at a mental hospital for murdering and cannibalizing a sleeping man, seems fair.

Despite what most people think, children are unable to effectively learn if they are not encouraged to in their homes. Most people rush to blame the schools and educators but in reality, most of the time its the parents that are to blame for their children's inability to do well in school.

Given that, its no surprise that in a city where the majority of children of the majority demographic are born into single-parent households, those children are unable to do well academically.

It also probably doesn't help that many of them weren't getting breakfast and lunch that the schools generally provide.

This was one of the big considerations when schools were shutting down--how many students were going to be without proper nutrition.

A thirteen year old kid dies from a heart attack a couple weeks after taking the vaccine and you think the vaccine was probably not the cause? Seriously?

Second, kids/teenagers shouldn't get the vaccine if the chance of the vaccine affecting them negatively is higher than that of COVID-19.

Everybody that is seriously at risk when it comes to COVID-19 (the elderly and the ones with underlying conditions/obesity) should have already received their doses.

You have no idea what underlying conditions the kid might have had. By 17 days there is probably only trace amounts of the vaccine left in the body.

Second, you (or the original poster) can't criticize the methodology of counting Covid deaths (every person who tested positive is counted as a death) and then use the exact same methodology to count vaccine deaths.

If the vaccine causes an inflammation process there's no reason myocarditis or something similar could not last for weeks at least. I don't think a heart attack at 17 days is out of the question. You don't need actual antigen for inflammation to stay around, that's immediately obvious if you look at some people's arms and lymph nodes a week or more after vaccination.

I think they just want something consistent which is reasonable.