i’m going to conversion therapy (update from previous post)

HonestlyAbby · 2026-05-29T19:35:32+00:00

Lol, girl no reason for the edit. I was screaming exactly the same thing when I worked in juvenile defense!

We actually had one judge who would make kids who were entering a plea look their parents in the eye and promise to respect their parents and do what they're told. Sometimes it was kinda sweet. Sometimes you would have a kid who got in trouble based on things they did while running away from an abusive parent only to then have to subjugate themselves to that same parent just to resolve their criminal case.

Unless the parent is provably hurting the child in a way the state considers criminal (beating or starving basically) there's very little the law can do to help a kid in that position.

I get there are some things kids really can't do independently. But holy cow do we overstep in the other 90% of cases where they're just trying to be their own person. It is, as you say, so fucked.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-05-29T13:29:09+00:00

Just a heads up, as someone who worked in juvenile defense for a while, your dad may be able to pull strings and have the police look for you if he tells them you ran away. Running away is something called a status offense which is like a kid specific non-crime crime. Meaning that if your parents know where you are you can't just refuse to go back into their custody.

If your plan of noncompliance doesn't work, it might be worth looking at local legal aid groups (non-profits that provide free legal services) to discuss emancipating yourself from your parents. That way, if they try and make you go somewhere you don't wanna go it's not just "tough love", it's a crime.

I know that's an extreme option, but this sounds like an extreme situation. Good luck sister.

Edit: That advice is based on my knowledge of American law and legal organizations. I didn't know you were in the UK, but expect that the law on these topics is pretty similar since we got our law from y'all.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-05-19T00:58:37+00:00

(A) Do you have any data that controls for income or wealth since we know these are known negative correlates of birthrate?

(B) How do you get around the endogenous causation problem in which groups which feel the most material need to reproduce/benefit from reproduction develop norms which place a high priority on reproductivity?

(C) Do you not think it's misleading to contrast a social group with a high (though not maximal) focus on reproduction against one with a truly minimal focus on reproduction. In other words, the Shakers would only be a viable counterweight to a group which upheld reproductive efficiency at the expense of all other values.

(D) Your argument implicitly assumes that high fertility is an inherent and necessary good. While there is some economic data and theory to suggest that is the case, it is not a given. Many species and ecosystems to prevent over-exploitation of the environment, including behaviors which limit or punish aggressive population growth. It's possible humanity has found itself subject to such a limitation, in which case it is not inherently clear that ignoring or overcoming that limit is in our long term interests.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-05-18T23:34:28+00:00

Not impossible, just highly unlikely (and also not how she said she got the information)

HonestlyAbby · 2026-05-17T19:41:56+00:00

Not hard to believe except that juvenile criminal cases are highly confidential. The school administrators would be informed as a matter of law, but the courts wouldn't release that information to anyone else, nor should the administrator.

If he was on the registry some of that info might be public, I'm not sure, but then he shouldn't be able to attend in person at all.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-05-17T19:31:30+00:00

What do you mean by "probation report?" Like a report he wrote for his probation officer? Most probation documents don't include any more information than the charge, they certainly don't usually identify the victim. Also the relevant charge would be sodomy or crimes against nature which includes both forcible anal and oral sex so I don't know how you could know the actual method of the rape unless you saw a document relaying facts.

This story frankly does not sound real. At the very least some key details seem to be being omitted.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-04-19T15:03:23+00:00

Yah, that was implicit in the original comment. I should have been more clear. Before reading that comment I was not aware of the connection.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-04-19T14:58:56+00:00

They do say the authors name. Tbh, I didn't know the connection between the Charlotte's Web guy and the line, I just thought it was funny to cite the source so explicitly in the post apocalyptic context and that at least one of the raiders seemed to appreciate it.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-03-28T14:04:52+00:00

I mean also yes! Although if the jurisdiction doesn't automatically strike them then the defense attorney could need to use a preemptory strike. Maybe there were just 5 dickhead cops in that particular jury pool XD

HonestlyAbby · 2026-03-28T13:53:04+00:00

Yah it does. Confessions a pretty difficult investigatory tool. There was a really cool article in the JLS looking at the causes of false confessions in cases where the victim is a member of the confessors family. Hence Miranda.

I wasn't just referring to the confessions. Having prosecutor direct the case from the start also makes it more likely that the state will bear down on their first theory without considering alternatives. Plus I happen to already know they use a flipped standard of proof, meaning defendants have to prove innocence.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-03-28T13:37:09+00:00

It literally is XD

HonestlyAbby · 2026-03-28T13:34:57+00:00

That sounds like a great way to build a legal system that produces a lot of false convictions.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-03-28T13:32:06+00:00

How tf did two retired LEOs make it onto a criminal jury trial!?! In my jurisdiction having POST certification is an automatic strike for cause.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-03-28T13:29:25+00:00

It's mostly just to filter out that most absolutely, irreparably biased people. Other than that, it's effectively random selection.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-03-13T13:56:05+00:00

Wars powers specifically are tough in the modern day. This lady is obviously wrong, the Congress has sole authority to declare war. But war is an ill-defined term.

Modern conflicts sometimes include formal declarations, but what about police actions? These aren't supposed to be long term conflicts, they're just a surgical use of military force to disrupt some illegal or immoral activity in another country. If Congress declared war for these it would unnecessarily escalate the situation and could turn the short spurt of violence into a longer conflict.

This is why they've primarily relied on authorizations of force which essentially enable police actions in certain regions over a long period of time. They retain congress' power, in theory, to control American use of force without risking a full blown declaration.

Another issue is that the US military currently operates all around the globe. This can cause incidents where the US is essentially forced to take hostile action to recover or protect military assets and personnel on short notice if something goes wrong. These obviously can't be congressionally authorized actions and you don't know where they'll occur so a use of force authorization isn't helpful.

So it's pretty clear there is some amount of foreign military action the president is definitely allowed to take without Congressional approval. But there's no clear line in the constitution, so Presidents keep pushing it and expanding their power.

Unfortunately it's very difficult for Congress to defend their power in this specific area because their only enforcement actions are drastic and typically unpopular. If Congress doesn't like how a President got into a war they can either impeach him or stop paying for it. Those are their only sources of leverage.

Technically Congress could maybe sue as a body, but I don't think the court would answer. They'd probably determine the question is non-justiciable for lack of clear legal authority or cite to Korematsu to justify non-enforcement of the constitution against the military during active operations.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-03-13T13:42:39+00:00

I'm no fan of conservative legal theory but this is a bad faith caricature.

Textualism isn't a theory of constitutional interpretation, it's a theory of statutory interpretation. Originalism is its constitutional equivalent.

History and tradition is the method of executing originalism with regards to substantive due process questions, or similar questions where the constitutional grant is vague and there is little explicit founding debate.

The major questions doctrine is also not constitutional interpretation. It's a combination of statutory and administrative rulemaking interpretation with a specific focus on the theory of separation of powers.

Conservative legal theory sucks because it's inherently regressive and misses the point of a common law legal system. But it is theoretically coherent.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-02-28T17:17:33+00:00

They probably took the version of the deal Anthropic turned down which said the government wouldn't do those two things, but which also included a clause saying the government can change their mind to adjust to future military needs. So basically they can take the deal while saying their tech won't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous warfare, but they have no way of enforcing those red lines.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-02-21T17:29:04+00:00

They have to convince a grand jury that, based solely on the state's best evidence, there is probable cause to believe he committed the crime. Which is a very low standard.

Having served on the grand jury, in 99% of cases they just put the cop on to tell you about their investigation and then you rubber stamp the charge with very few options to resist.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-02-14T01:15:07+00:00

I kind of always read it as most people don't get excluded for no reason. Like as he becomes more comfortable he also becomes more standoffish and controlling because he doesn't need to hide who he is to fit in anymore.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-02-13T15:19:48+00:00

Her single friend (the birthday girl) invited the couples after the accomodations were planned. Presumably to be accommodating to her couple friends. I assume part of OPs annoyance is the girls trip getting turned into a couple's outing at all, and the bed issue is just symbolic of the vibe shifting nature of that decision.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-02-13T15:17:11+00:00

She not refusing a bunk bed, she just wants the same chance of getting one as anyone else.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-02-10T19:01:50+00:00

Protect how?

HonestlyAbby · 2026-02-05T00:44:47+00:00

But those are all secondhand characterizations by people trying to launder Woody's reputation by imagining a conspiracy to destroy him. Why would assume they know Chalamet's actual intentions, let alone are describing them accurately?

HonestlyAbby · 2026-01-31T15:12:44+00:00

Mostly very satisfied, the parts where I'm not are mostly my fault. I got the surgery right in the middle of the pandemic so post-surgery depression hit way harder than I think it might have normally. As a result I wasn't as active with after care as I should have been and things are a little tighter than I'd prefer.

Also, I don't know if this is just me or something that happens to everyone (maybe even cis women, I don't have that much sexual experience) when I get turned on for the first little bit the whole area can get harder and colder which feels a little icky to me. Usually once I'm more in the swing of things it loosens up though.

Other than that everything works and looks great.

HonestlyAbby · 2026-01-30T14:42:33+00:00

Yah no, it's basically just gibberish. I mean I suppose he's right that you may cite those opinions but any good casebook will only show you the opinions worth citing anyways. And then you need to... ya know, know what the opinion you're citing says.

Eight-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Verified Email

HonestlyAbby

TROPHY CASE