halyk.the.red

Could be a few bad months from being homeless, never a few good months from being wealthy.

Of course, I don’t see why you’re getting downvoted so hard. I think that asking people to back things up with sources should be standard practice.

In this case, I don’t have concrete proof, but I let you know that it’s an opinion influenced by certain facts, like private prisons generating profits and them using lobbists to further their interests.

Some people, however, make wild claims or assumptions that they’re pushing as pure facts, but can’t produce any kind of verifiable source.

Some people are saying they don’t want to do your homework for you, and just to google it. To be fair, that’s all I did to get those links. But their thinking is backwards. The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof, not everyone else.

If someone makes a claim, but can’t support it at all, it can be disregarded. But if someone makes a claim, and provides proof, and someone else is able to provide proof contrary to that point, now we have a debate. More proof and evidence will be required to see who is correct.

Otherwise we end up with people just firing off unverified claims, backed up with ad hominem and defended with strawmen and slippery slopes.

So keep asking people for proof and sources, more people need to be checked on their shit.

Nope, personal opinion. It makes sense to me that for-profit prison systems would lobby to make homelessness a crime, to gather more workers, and to get more money from the government. I don’t have a source that says “Yes, this is the reason why.” but you can follow the money and make your own opinions from there.

The purpose is to push people into the for-profit prison system, which rakes in billions in slave labor.

There’s a pest control salesman who goes door to door every year, who I can’t stand. Not only does he say outright incorrect things, but he can’t take no for an answer. Every polite refusal turns into, “You know what, we can knock 80 bucks off that right now” or “How about we just make the first month free.”

Next time he comes knocking, I’m going to be immediately upfront. I’m not interested in paying money to spray poison, that will end up in the canal and the river, to kill bugs that birds and frogs and bats could be eating.

Same with Ghost

Baseless, got it. Thanks.

Same, it was a night I waited 15 years for haha

Just saw them play this live a few weeks ago, it was an amazing show.

What’s under his shirt?

Do you have any other sources that can be verified? Otherwise, I’ll have to dismiss your claim as baseless. But like I said in other comments, I’m referring to the article and how it sensationalized the death penalty for website clicks, not about China’s intent behind the law or it’s application.

How so?

Absolutely. I agree that life would be so much simpler if it was only black and white issues, but rarely is that the case. And I get it, those binary beliefs are comfortable. But we need to endure the difficulty of questioning our assumptions, pushing out of that simplistic worldview, and learning. It’s the only way we grow as people.

Some skinny girl climbed into my lap at a college house party. I was very fucked up. For some reason, I thought a good thing to say was, “Why not, I’ve fucked fatter chicks.” She immediately got up and we never spoke again. No clue why I said that. I never even got her name, which is a shame, because I’d like to apologize.

I never discounted the inclusion of the threat of death, I only commented on the fixation on it in that article. Of course the inclusion of the death penalty needs to be a part of the discussion.

We can spend the rest of forever discussing what-ifs and hypotheticals. I don’t think it does the original discussion justice to boil it down from the severity of secession to parking issues. I fear your simplification misrepresents the original discussion, as the nuance of the China-Taiwan situation cannot earnestly be recreated with parking violations in a city.

But yes, to answer your question, I do think that journalistic integrity is important at any level.

If you keep reading in that translated article linked in the original article, it says that if you change your stance and make an honest attempt to undo the damage you did, the charges may be dropped. So one could end up with no punishments at all.

My comments aren’t advocating, ignoring, or accepting the death penalty. I can’t speculate to China’s intent behind the law, or assume it’s application.

I was addressing the sensationalist nature of the article, about how it latched onto the passage about death for the purpose of generating clicks.

To discuss the why or the how behind the law is another matter entirely and goes well beyond the scope of my comment. I’m sure there are plenty of discussions out there that cover those topics, however.

Excellent, thanks.

I saw this duck over here, quacking and waddling around, so I called it a duck. Some people took offense, apparently. There was some good discourse, though.

I used google’s webpage translation. It does mention death as a penalty, but it’s far from the only possible outcome.

The clickbait nature of the headline does seem to imply that it’s death right off the bat. I never said that death wasn’t on the table, as unfortunate as that is. The death penalty is far from the only outcome, which is difficult to surmise from just this one article alone.

However, I’m not going to edit the comments I made in an attempt to present it differently. My goal was to get people to read into it, question their assumptions, and not take the article at face value. Media literacy is a skill and involves going well past the headline, so hopefully some people saw that while trying to prove me wrong.

I feel the downvotes are unjustified as well, but I’m not going to lose sleep over it. It’s a sensitive subject for a lot of people, and I saw that going into it.