If he was convicted of domestic violence, then he cannot legally own a firearm, unless the conviction has been vacated or he's been pardoned. That's federal law. Therefore, he either wasn't convicted of domestic violence, the courts failed to follow through with their legal obligations and report the conviction to NICS, or he acquired the firearm illegally.
HelixDab
joined 2 years ago
Keep in mind that DeSantis win reelection in Florida in a landslide. It was a blowout. So don't think this is an anomaly, that his rhetoric is extreme for the republican party; it's not. He's the smarter version of Trump, and that makes him a fuck of a lot more dangerous.
The problem is that it's not "proven"; the only side presenting any evidence is the person seeking the protective order. If you make it an adversarial process so that the subject of the protective order can try to refute claims by the person seeking the order, then sure.
But right now it's strictly one-sided. Most places do require some form of evidence, but that evidence doesn't have to meet normal evidentiary standards, and the evidence isn't being questioned in an adversarial way.
Personally, I'm not comfortable removing rights when the person losing rights can't contest it.
For Leviticus 20:13 to not be hate-speech, you have to start by proving, first, that any god at all exists, and second, that the Hebrew bible is the word of that god. The approach advocated in Leviticus assumes that morality is predicated on the will of a god; if a god wills a thing, then that thing must be moral, because that god creates morality. So unless you can demonstrate that a god exists, and that the translation that we have of Leviticus is the will of that god, then it should not be assumed to be moral. Perhaps you could prove the morality of it in some other way, but you haven't made that attempt yet.
The Hebrew bible also explicitly condones slavery and rape, which implies that god says those things are moral. Would you then agree that slavery in the American south prior to 1860 was a moral practice? Would it be a moral practice if it started again? The bible advocates for genocide; is genocide moral?
BTW there's disagreement about the meaning of that verse, from rabbinical scholars no less. Seems to me that evangelicals might want to do a little more studying to understand context before they make assumptions about the foundations of their religion.
Mmmmm, it's more like no one can reasonably demonstrate the truth of any god, rather than any specific god being demonstrably false. It's an important distinction. You can't disprove a thing, but you can prove that alternate explanations are far more probable, or that the thing doesn't fit the evidence.
I don't have to; you have to provide good sources to back up your claim. If I say that god exists, and then claim that the bible proves is, well, I'm not proving my point because I haven't yet given any solid evidence to my claims. This is how a debate works when your arguing like a rational adult.
And, for the record, CNN/NYT/et al. are also biased, but they're (usually) more factually based. Bias is not the same as factually incorrect; bias is reflected in which stories you choose to report, and what language you use in reporting. And example of a source that would be both unbiased and highly factual would be Reuters News Service, or the Christian Science Monitor. Similarly, Jabocin is strongly left-biased, but also highly factual.
Three of the sources you cited are not credible because they continually play fast and loose with facts and don't bother verifying information. One of them was unsourced entirely, and the backup you provide is not in English--or based in the US--which makes determining the veracity difficult.
In short, you aren't acting in good faith.
If by pluralism you mean competing viewpoints in political systems, then the ability to shut them down means that those voices have failed to successfully compete. That's like saying "No one wants to work anymore!" when you don't want to pay workers the prevailing wage, and then crying because your business fails.
Humans believe they have free will. If you think that you have free will, in what way does that differ meaningfully to you from actually having free will?
This gets weird, because the human brain appears to make decisions unconsciously before you consciously make that choice. It appears that our "rational" , thinking brain is making up reasons why we did a thing, rather than those reasons actually driving the choice. So did you--the consciousness that you conceptualize as being yourself--really make that choice, or is there some other 'dark' you that's driving, and you only think you're in control?
My general understanding is that you're forgiven if you choose to accept Jesus. (Note that I am not christian, but was raised as such.) You are not required to accept salvation. Actions, by themselves, mean nothing; you can be a fantastic, moral person, and work all of your life to help other people, and without accepting Jesus you're still damned. OTOH, if you have truly accepted Jesus, then ipso facto you're going to work tirelessly to help people; actions are a natural consequence of the belief. Therefore, someone that acts contrary to the teaching of Jesus is not saved, because they do not have true belief.
For a real world example, Jimmy Carter would be a person that you could say would be saved (...if any of this was real); his effort demonstrates the faith he claims. OTOH, looking at all of the televangelists, you could quite reasonably say that their daily lives contradict the teachings of Jesus, and therefore no professed belief can ever result in their salvation.
Daily Mail
Fox News
NY Post
...And a Twitter account that doesn't link to a credible news source.
Would you like to try again without the sources that continually fail fact checks and exhibit a far right bias?
Anyone that is familiar with the ways that communism has existed in Warsaw-pact countries, in China, in southeast Asia in general, etc., should be able to see that. LGBTQ+ people were, if anything, even more fucked in most communist countries. There certainly wasn't any meaningful religious tolerance, since religion was banned in at least some communist countries (or wholly controlled by the gov't).
I'm in favor of communism in principle, but not in practice. I'd love to live in a commune, but I don't think I'd want to live in a communist country.
As far as the US goes, that's incorrect. The issue is a 1A issue, not a 5A issue.
tl;dr - you are required to provide keys, combinations, fingerprints, etc. when there's a warrant. You might not be required to provide passwords.
Let's say cops have a search warrant for your house, and you have a safe in your house that they think the evidence of the crime they're investigating is hidden in. But it's locked. You are obligated to unlock that safe for them, whether it's a physical key, a combination, or a fingerprint. If you refuse, you can be compelled, and can be held in contempt of court and held in jail until you comply. (Or course, in the case of a physical safe, refusing the provide the key would mean that they'd hire a security expert to destroy the safe in order to retrieve the contents. But that's not possible with encrypted data.)
The problem is that a password is both a key and speech. I can be compelled to provide a key, but I can't be compelled to engage in certain speech. So far, courts have been divided on what a password is, and I don't believe that the question has been addressed by SCOTUS yet. (Although, knowing SCOTUS, I wouldn't expect them to be tech-savvy enough to make a good ruling.) In some cases, people that have been under court orders to provide passwords have been held in jail on contempt charges until they've divulged the password, even when they say that they've forgotten the password in question.
Keep in mind that the people that this is often applied to are not usually people you'd want to be friends with; most of that cases I've seen in the news involve people that are accused of having child pornography, either uploading or downloading it, or terrorism. But obvs. revoking rights to deal with exceptionally scummy people also means that those rights get revoked for everyone else...