As a matter of fact, it is a subscription, and it's exactly how the right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, due process in general, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" work: on the principle that it's better that some evil people will get off and reoffend than it is for innocent people to be incarcerated for failing to prove their innocence. Not how it always works when prosecutors and judges have a different personal philosophy, but that's the idea and the trade-off taken.
AndyLikesCandy
joined 2 years ago
TBH I'm totally on a tangent here about Netflix's writing teams having their own stories in mind and butchering books instead of picking different books to base shows on. In my example the book series was overwhelming from Gerhalt's POV with arcs that were written from Ciris POV, and a little flash back for background here and there. The Netflix series started true to the books, and the last release had a completely different story and feel with Gerhalt being a supporting character. Wheel of time is a great female led book series (with similar elements) and is a good show so far, my point is Netflix's writers whose names we don't know and who are churning out scripts are just are no match for a renowned author's best known series, and I have zero faith in their ability to transform an existing story into something better. I don't watch enough Netflix series to give you a statistical analysis, but in the ones I've seen they were just throwing tropes in which is not the same as being allies.
I think people are more annoyed because Netflix's tendencies lately are more like putting a gay character in a series based on a book where the character was sexually active and definitely straight. I'm really thinking about the last season of Witcher which took this to the extreme, that changed the protagonists and plot of a very good book transforming the series into something quite different only for the sake of fitting a politically desirable mold.
How often exactly does that happen? At worst what we've seen so far is either the shooter goes to the "sensitive place" next door where carry is prohibited or if a good guy stops the shooter and is still holding a weapon when the cops roll up, the good guy gets killed on sight.
I'm curious about what inaccurate perceptions you think they're pushing and what their agenda is.
Is their agenda... preventing needless death?
Foundational assumptions about this debate. A political party that's half of a government that killed 20,000,000 civilians in other countries over the last century is trying to convince you that you'd be better off without the ability to arm yourself to defend against rapists and the second amendment never had anything to do with discouraging tyranny here.
The problem is normalization. The only-government-can-have-guns crowd pushes inaccurate perceptions to advance the agenda.
Black with a gun? Definitely get shot. White with a gun? Maybe get shot. Holding a gun at a place where someone did something with a gun? 110% you're getting shot.
This all while about 50% of Americans own guns. It's not like you simply assume every male is a rapist and kill them on sight just in case, or more accurately to my analogy charge every male within some distance of a rape occurring with a felony and put them on a list for life just to be safe.
Tool cabinets are a marvelous thing. I have a little thing squirreled away in a drawer of other tools, just the top of a box that a screen protector came in, that is just full of tiny specialized precision tools that I very seldom need.
WTF are people supposed to do? No way anyone's intervening to save you when it puts a target on their fucking back, and cops have zero duty to protect you.
Really dislike people pulling the "where was the good guy with the gun" card when someone who fights a gunman unarmed and wins still gets shot by the cops, and the cop goes away unscathed. Obscene that literally the only reason anything happened to him in this case was him blabbing racist shit.
Literally everyone else who gets emotional and misbehaves gets shot, or institutionalized, or at a bare minimum felonies that deprive them of certain rights for the rest of their lives.
Instead of giving him a tax payer funded handout this could have been an opportunity to fix a thing. Fuck that guy.
I'm not sure you fully understand the words you're saying, "right to live" would necessarily demand compelling people to act in the furtherance of everyone else's lives. You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you're taking away resources needed to keep others alive, and your unhealthy lifestyle taxing the health system actively hurts those who need it more.
You're looking for a different kind of government altogether.