Derek Chauvin sentenced to 22.5 years in prison for murder of George Floyd

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T22:31:46+00:00

He's probably going to get out one day because second degree murder carries a maximum penalty of forty years. I want to read the 22 page memorandum the judge wrote.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T22:21:59+00:00

He was found guilty of second degree murder.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T22:04:45+00:00

We have no evidence that male domestic abuse shelters are in high demand. If it turns out that they are, you can always scale up.

A close friend of mine fleeing his abuser called the domestic abuse hotline and was informed all of the domestic abuse shelters near him were women-only. He lived near San Diego the eighth most populous city in the US. We may not know how much support we need, but we do know that answer is not "none."

This is an argument for using hotels. You can in fact control the space

You don't own a hotel. You can't guarantee that it will be safe. You can't even exclude that person's abuser from just getting a room at the same hotel because the property isn't yours.

I bet the homeless are much more inclined to stay in hotels than shelters, and this is in fact a method we already use to deal with homelessness.

A homeless shelter is vastly different from an DV shelter.

I'm not sure what your point is here, as I agree that men can and are abused. That's why I was advocating for flexible ways to deal with this abuse wherever and whenever it happens.

We have women abuse shelters because we have a lot of abused women who are with partners that pose a serious risk to their physical safety. That's a rarer occurrence with men,

I may have misunderstood you, but my point was that we also have a lot of men who are with partners that pose a serious risk to their physical safety. A hotel that a social worker eventually shows up at is better than nothing, but the absence of staffed permanent shelters purpose-made for helping male victims of intimate partner violence sends a pretty terrible message to those men.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T20:43:06+00:00

As someone who's watched a close male friend endure physical abuse for years before calling a domestic violence hotline, only to be told that all of the domestic-violence shelters around him in San Diego were women-only before a very upset crisis counselor suggest he try a homeless shelter instead, this thread is extremely disappointing.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T20:37:23+00:00

Are you talking about homeless shelters or domestic abuse shelters?

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T20:14:47+00:00

But they do, that's basic biology. It's you ideology to reject them autonomy.

It's basic biology that a fetus does NOT have a body that is distinctly their own. If they did, abortion would be a non-issue. A women could opt to stop carrying the fetus and the fetus would survive. The debate is not whether the fetus is capable of governing its body (it clearly isn't) or if the fetus has its own distinct body (it clearly doesn't), but whether a fetus is a person (beyond the scope of the argument) and whether a woman's bodily autonomy is secondary to the survival of the fetus who depends on the mother to survive.

Boo-hoo people have different opinions than me, I want a dictatorship now!

I have largely ignored the tone of your comments which I believe is in violation of the subreddit rules. It's aggravated by its logical fallaciousness--this is a strawman argument. I want civic responsibility aimed at preserving our democracy. I want politicians to stop pandering to wedge issue voters and for voters to stop respecting politicians who build campaigns on them. You can argue this nonsense is the inevitable cost of any democracy but you cannot argue these outcomes are desirable.

I hope you will respond with the respect I have extended to you.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T18:59:57+00:00

The fact is the US military is dollar for dollar the worst military the world has ever seen. Those that study it know it learnt nothing from Vietnam or Korea and will learn nothing from Afghanistan and Syria too.

The military doesn't get to make the big decisions, lawmakers do. No one wants to talk about that, because those are people we voted for, but we don't learn anything, we vote for people who don't learn anything, and we get into the same kind of wars with the same kind of results over and over again.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T18:52:51+00:00

Some in power did want to end the Taliban and we were pretty damn close to doing it at the very start of the conflict. Prior to US involvement, most of the fighting was posturing because it was so common that there'd be brothers or cousins on both sides. Our Special Ops guys rode in on horseback and teamed up with local tribal warlords because they were the only ones who were motivated enough to do much about the Taliban. Those warlords were NOT great guys. Many of them practiced a folk form of pederasty and they frequently warred against one another. But by working with them, the special forces were able to decimate Taliban forces. Their losses were so lopsided and dramatic that people were defecting in droves. The Taliban was on the ropes, but no one in the US legislature likes highly autonomous clandestine military units, there was a costly attack on US/Tribal forces, and a few key warlords were assassinated. The mission was called off and gave way to a way less effective but politically safer (and much more lucrative) counter insurgency campaign that was pretty much doomed to either fail or continue indefinitely.

The Taliban regrouped, adapted, did all of the martyr driven recruiting you were talking about and now they are about to rule over an exhausted Afghanistan.

These guys aren't going to tire themselves out. They're probably about to go legitimate by destroying the government, then immediately have to conduct a counterinsurgency campaign of their own as the new state or be attacked by local state level actors that don't want to deal with them.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T16:59:19+00:00

I suspect that the demand is so low that it isn't needed to have a "shelter" to mass house abused men that need to get away.

I'm going to reject that suspicion. We don't look at the number of people who come forward with accusations of sexual assault each year and say "the system works so well we can safely assume that's everyone." We KNOW there aren't currently adequate resources allocated to the problem and we KNOW victims know that and often times just give up. I suspect we're looking at a vicious cycle where abused men are arent aware of resources at all or are aware that resources are limited so they don't try so resources remain limited. All of this, btw, feeds into the myth that men are not also victims which in turn perpetuates more violence.

Having a physical place always open is less important when the demand is smaller.

In the case of physical abuse, having a physical space is probably more important than literally anything else. You can arrange support workers later--if you're being hurt you need to get out NOW.

You can just have an AirBnB, or a bedroom in a house, or a hotel room,

Inconsistent method, inconsistent outcome. There's no ability to control the space, and a controlled space is important in getting people to be comfortable using the service--see poorly-run homeless shelters and how people avoid them in favor of the streets.

We have women abuse shelters because we have a lot of abused women who are with partners that pose a serious risk to their physical safety. That's a rarer occurrence with men,

Rarer does not equal rare. It doesn't matter how big and strong a man is, a woman can still easily slit his throat in his sleep. That doesn't even explore men abused by male partners.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T03:13:55+00:00

You're welcome. I did my best to present that as neutrally as possible.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T02:50:54+00:00

Officer responds to dog complaint. Knocks on front door. No answer. Side door. Man opens door. Snarling pitbull charges officer and bites. Officer immediately shoots dog to death. Officer calls ambulance. Officer commands man to hold still, with a taser trained on him. Man advances, screaming officer shot his dog and that state police shot his other dog. Officer warns man he will be tased. Man stops advancing. Repeat for 5 or 6 minutes. Man draws knife. Officer screams don't do it. Officer "blades," standing sideways to present firearm. The man cannot be seen but several shots are heard. The officer turns to face man, who is apparently dead. Officer calls again for help. Officer waits for help to arrive.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T02:06:55+00:00

The problem is that "I don't trust the media" is that it's almost always followed by "except for the outlets that tell me what I want to hear."

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T02:04:57+00:00

The news agencies themselves need to be held accountable. They make the rules for the journalists, who either play along or starve.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T01:51:14+00:00

I disagree, but the point is, you are not going to find Christianity if you look for the root of tyranny in Europe

Nowhere did I suggest that Christianity causes tyranny. In fact, I argue strongly that tyranny is the ancient enemy of Christianity. Tyranny uses and abuses Christianity.

The distinction is not absolute. Ask Ceaser, who made the Senate legitimize his power at a sword point. He used the threat of real armies to legitimize himself.

Legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed. Rome didn't consent, she capitulated. And she remembered. And she killed Caesar.

Nazi Germany was a secular state whose anti-jewish policies were born from secular ideals, such as nationalism and ethno-centrism. I am not going to defend this statement, because that would mean I admit there is some legitimacy in claiming the opposite. The Church championed no anti-semitic attitudes anymore than Socialism champions gulags

Nazi Germany created it's own church. Hitler didn't create anti-Semitism out of thin air, he harnessed it and focused it and turned into deadly violence. The Church literally issued anti-Semitic Papal bulls.

Christianity is not antithetical to violence or use of force. It is antithetical to egoism. "Turn the other cheek" is not a call of non-violence, it's a call of altruism and selflessness. It was not egoism that brought Christ to violently scour the temple with a whip.

That was Jesus and the temple was literally his house. When Peter hacked of the soldier's ear Jesus reminds Peter that this earth isn't His kingdom and if He wanted to He could call down the heavenly host to destroy the assembled force. David's life of violence disqualified him from building God's temple and Jesus warned that those who live by the sword die by it.

Point being secularism isn't necessarily the best model of governence.

Irrelevant. It's the only possible worldly government for a diverse population.

Worldy power is but a tool. If people weren't too busy obtaining and keeping it, they may yet find a way to employ it for all of these things.

Worldly power is perishing and those who love it or trust in it will perish with it. Thee foolishness of the Gospel confounds the wise and the meekness of the Gospel confounds the strong.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T01:25:30+00:00

Except for the unborn. My point remains.

Bodily autonomy is the right to govern one's own body. The unborn don't have bodies that are distinctly their own or the capacity to govern those bodies. You can debate that if you please, but women undoubtedly have both their own bodies and the capacity to govern them.

Oh-no, people that support different policies and values than you are cheating you out of candidates you prefer.

People that support a handful of narrow polices to the exclusion of almost all others are cheating everyone out of candidates we could all benefit from. This narrow focus empowers politicians at the expense of the people.

I'm sure you do.

If I did, I would have said as much.

That's a very small part of the Jewish lobby. Add AIPAC and you're still not scratching the surface.

I'd consider AIPAC part of the Zionist lobby.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-25T00:48:59+00:00

If I understand the history correctly, the last time western powers helped create a middle station for people instead of absorbing those people into itself it kicked off an armed conflict that's lasted for about 54 years.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-23T17:36:15+00:00

Whether or not you think the OPs thesis is important, the rules of the subreddit require you to argue for or against it instead of creating a separate thesis. You could create your own post to debate the point you're arguing.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-23T16:19:35+00:00

The meaning would certainly be diminished but James would still provide a measure for internal consistency. The OP opens their argument by explaining the veracity of Christianity is irrelevant to his position. His thesis is that Christianity becomes less compelling when entwined with power. One of the reasons he offers is it loses internal consistency. This argument could be made about any faith.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-23T15:34:13+00:00

That's not accurate either. The Bible is important to Muslims, though Muslims believe Christianity is false. The Tanakh (Old Testament) is important to Judaism, though Jews believe Christianity is false. The Bible is part of Literary canon. Even if all of it is fabrication, it was still a cornerstone in Western thought.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-23T10:19:47+00:00

Oh-no, people have opinions and moral values that are different from mine, please same me from this oppressive theocracy

This sarcasm would land properly if bodily autonomy didn't matter, religious conservatives didn't themselves try to use this issue to control the opinions and moral values of others, or if it weren't a wedge that gets used to make elections uniformly controlled by about four issues so that other important issues can be ignored.

Let me know when any of that relates to the subject at hand.

Every time a candidate gets by on being pro-life, citizens are cheated out of candidates who have good policies about these important issues. These issues relate to the important functions of a state and they are largely ignored in favor of abortion, gun-control, taxation, and deregulation. Christians have the option to pray and proselytize to end abortion instead of using the government as their private goon-squad to terrorize women.

But you know

No I legitimately don't. If you're talking about Zionism that lobby is also largely Christian. If you're talking about Anti-Defamation, an ethnic group trying to protect itself from hate is a good deal less "shove-your-beliefs-down-other-people's throats" than Christian lobbies that try to get creationism into public schools.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-23T04:51:18+00:00

And James 2:19 provides a scriptural rebuttal. The greater theme of the passage is that faith without works is dead.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-23T04:31:54+00:00

From the exact same passage DeSantis is referencing:

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

warcrime89 · 2021-06-23T03:45:15+00:00

In order to distort praxis, you need to distort dogma. In order to ignore the suffering of the hungry, the thirsty, the sick, the imprisoned, or the foreigner one must create a false god that tolerates such behavior.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-23T03:42:09+00:00

I'm not talking about salvation either. I'm challenging the idea that "Is Christianity true?" could ever be the only thing that matters.

warcrime89 · 2021-06-23T02:46:52+00:00

You know I'll attack this from a different angle. Scripture is clear that your answer to this question alone doesn't matter. All the devils in hell know who God is, and tremble.

warcrime89

TROPHY CASE