Because you can't prove what's inside your mind, and that's what a lot of sexual assault cases come down to.
She said and acted one way, but is saying after the fact that in her head she believed something else.
You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt in that case.
It's you're wrong.
This content occurs in the Bible, should it also be banned from sale?
What about old plays that contain similar content?
What about art that contains it?
The point is that visa and mastercard should not be policing it, if is legal to own you should be allowed to buy it.
Thats fine, but then restocking fees become part of you wanting to test things.
That shouldn't be on the manufacturer or other customers.
Our court systems are setup to require "beyond reasonable doubt" but sexual assault cases struggle to meet that threshold anytime there is even a little bit of grey area, then they also struggle on the defendants side when it comes to reputational loss.
Do your research before buying something?
There's no restocking fee for an item that you didn't get, because it's not a return.
A company charging you a restocking fee in that situation is a scam.
The customer always pays, not the business.
Do you want to pay extra because other people return items?
It has nothing to do with discounting it, it has to do with paying for the labour involved in the sale and refund process, which takes worker time.
You misunderstand how the tax works. It's only on the land. The buildings on it have no impact on the monthly tax amount. That's why it's beneficial to densify the land, because then that amount is split between all of the people who live there (or among multiple businesses using it)
The whole rich capturing it all can't really happen. They can't actually profit from it sitting there, it all has to be used efficiently or it loses money. People wanting a house don't have a problem paying for it every month.
If they try to monopolize all the rents (which would be prohibitively expensive) then the government can simply step in and force a sale because its their land and prevent certain groups from bidding on it. Instant monopoly break, or rather the government is the one with the monopoly.
Land is still zoned. If it can only be used for farming due to the zoning, then its not as desirable to most people and therefore has a lower lease rate from the government.
If the government decides to change the use of that land, the rental price would increase and then the farmer would likely give it up and lease something else.
It's not really that different from the current property tax reductions that apply to farms.
What part of any of this was boys will be boys?
What part of any of this was hockey related?
It's a problem with sex and consent and how consent is an impossible legal concept to prosecute except in obvious situations where it is actively revoked.
It's currently impossible for anyone to know they have the consent of their partner if the partner can always revoke it while saying nothing, or even while their partner is actively saying yes and then claiming duress later. If consent is impossible to know for sure, having sex is a huge legal liability for everyone participating.
That just isn't legally tenable as a situation unless the goal is literally to prevent everyone from having sex. That's a terrible idea, so the better options is to pick a different method of defining consent.
It may not be what some people want, but unless we want to change our legal system's requirement for "beyond a reasonable doubt" I don't see a better option.