Responding aggressively to a post asking why it appears that American culture has become more aggressive and hateful is not helping as much as you think.
Echinoderm
joined 2 years ago
..."the groom did not respond to our request for comment." It makes it clear that you tried and he was not interested in explaining himself.
For context, it's standard practice in proceedings under the Family Law Act to use pseudonyms, so it's not really possible to track this guy down and ask for his comment.
It must not be overlooked that I am not required to accept evidence, even uncontroverted evidence, if that evidence is contrary to the way events are likely to have occurred
Tell that to the High Court in Pell…
My reading of the Pell appeal was that is more or less what the High Court decided, albeit while applying the more stringent criminal burden of beyond reasonable doubt in relation to a jury trial. The Court fundamentally concluded that while the complainant's evidence was credible, the compounding effect of unchallenged evidence from multiple other witnesses meant that there was "a significant possibility" Pell was not guilty of the charges.
I should mention that I'm not a Pell apologist; it does appear from the Royal Commission on institutional abuse that he was complicit in covering up historical sexual assaults, and that is unforgivable. But for anyone that hasn't read the full text of the appeal (http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2020/12.html), I thoroughly recommend it. I am not ashamed to say that I think the Court makes a convincing case for him not being guilty of those particular charges.
Here's the link to the case should you be interested: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC1F/2024/674.html
To be fair to the BBC, most of the questions you raise don't have good answers. There doesn't seem to be a lot of the other side of the story to report. The judge mentions at several points that the purported groom gave only vague and incomplete evidence, and that he failed to provide details about key issues.
My most notable one was Subnautica.
I enjoyed it enough that I completed it 3 times: firstly in normal mode, then in hardcore mode, then with the Deathrun mod.
Ah yes, nature's ghillie suit.
Next they're going to tell us that a bird sharpening its beak every thousand years wouldn't wear out a mountain made of diamond.
It really depends on the kid and the complexity of the message. Young kids are still learning the intricacies of the language and building a vocabulary. Not talking down to them helps build those skills up. But at the end of the day, if the message is not getting across, it's the fault of the communicator.
Plus it's an annoying flex to say "see how amazing my kid is? It's all because of me!" Some kids just pick up language easier, some kids sleep all the way through the night earlier, some kids toilet train easier, etc. Usually it's better for parents to quietly take the little victory rather than treat it as a reflection of their amazing parenting skills.
Thanks, I didn't catch the sarcasm, which was what had me confused.
A coerced oath isn't really an oath at all. But Thorpe wasn't coerced into becoming a senator. She wasn't forced to run for election. Once elected she wasn't forced to take an oath. She chose to do those things because she thought it would benefit what she's trying to achieve.
Now, I'm not pro monarchy, and I'm not against Thorpe advocating for aboriginal sovereignty. But saying "you are not my king" but also having sworn "faithful and true allegiance" to that king just doesn't sit well together for me.
Senators are required to make an Oath or Affirmation as follows:
OATH I,....., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!
AFFIRMATION I,....., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors according to law.
Regardless of what you think of the monarchy, and whether you think that oath is an outright stupid anachronism, it's still the oath she took. It comes across as plain poor conduct to act that way while acting in her capacity of Senator.
Toms Hanks also made a movie 40 years ago about role playing games making you mentally unwell and suicidal. So I'm not sure we should necessarily be citing 1980s Tom Hanks movies for their social commentary value.