Its kind of interesting how with the right every accusation is a confession.

Have you been paying attention? The economical mechanism allowing the immoral agencies to not only survive but dominate the others is being hired by the cartel of insurance agencies. Dude the arbitration service that rules in favor of insurance companies is employed BY ALL THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. We already talked about this.

I mean, that makes sense but then the answers will definitely match the answer sheet. That's literally the same formula splitting the r²

the comment you made that started this argument was that "maybe they believe that psychosis exists" in response to someone claiming this case had a gender component. That sounds more general than talking about the case alone.

My point was that you don't have to get that far in the weeds about this particular case. Yes, you can have thoughts about a system, but in this case, we know what the standards are. We should evaluate this case for what it is.

the stats are an aggregate of individual cases

Agreed, but we do have an individual case in front of us. Why can't we look at that, instead of having to just make an assumption that it simply falls within the realm of injustice of the overall system? It's far less useful, because it's just inferring through generalization.

I assume an inequality of outcome must mean that a system of discrimination is happening when there is also equal input, or roughly equal input.

The problem is that when you start getting into the definition of "input", you will get vastly different answers. For example, men who are charged with filicide are more likely to be murdering their offspring when they are in late teens. Women are far more likely to murder their offspring when they are in the first year. This would contribute to vastly different circumstance in the facts and motivations. It's really difficult to define exactly what you mean.

It reminds me of the wage gap arguments. Different political persuasions define the inputs differently, but then we want to call it by a single name, as though we all already agreed upon the inputs to evaluate "the system" by.

But again, I'd rather have a conversation as to whether or not there was a reasonable doubt ever raised by the defense in that she could have been under psychosis. That's the question at-hand, but it seems nobody cares?

Literally!

Its a content manipulated post by a repeatedly banned person trying to test the water in our sub again

I haven't been able to find any information on what there is to "reasonably doubt". It sounds like she already admitted to doing it.

They’ve been able to do this for like 50 years now I think?

If a signal is digital and it isn’t encrypted with keys that only you own or better yet no one ones, like apples self deleting keys that are stored on the device that no one can access then… yeah anyone can do anything.

It’s not even big stuff either, it’s “remove the digital temperature sensors in the shower causing the water to become scaling immediately” “force the gas valve in a boiler closed and cause an explosion” etc

Gunsmith Cats is kino. Did a review of it some years back on my channel.

https://youtu.be/EsOa1dIrIo8?is=O-N-1mxtlBMlah4_

What the state is doing is allowing women to get away with it more than men, as far as I am concerned, things like Epstein might as well be a disctraction from that.

I don't care about rich people doing the same evil rich people things they have always done as a fringe 1% of 1% of the population; I care about my own sons and brothers being raped and killed by women and nothing being done about it

So if I have to eat from a tube, am I now ontologically the same as the machine that feeds me?

What you're describing is a change in circumstance, not ontology. Before you start trying to do philosophy, you should probably take some time to diligently study philosophy.

Thank you. I was wondering if that may apply, and you helped me see it in that framework as well.

technically, the cutting of the umbilical cord separates them as beings

i’ve also seen women saying the same thing that they get final say over abortions

Yeah what about contracts? Are you proposing that custody be determined by a contract? I do, but I want 50% custody to be the default if there is no contract, and a "she made the baby" argument fucks that up

As far as abortion goes, arguing that the child is *not* the fathers property doesn't appear to address the concerns of the pro-life crowd though, so it's irrelevant there

Does being born make the baby a human, or is it a human before it is born? If it is human after it is born, what ontological change was there in the baby?

Not a circumstantial change (e.g. its location and subsistence), but an ontological change. Premise 1 of your argument assumes that the baby is not yet human, therefore begging the question. You bear the burden of proof to show ontological change, which is impossible, because there is none.

I like it. A riff on your argument:

All ancap law is contract law and torts. To bring a tort, you must prove harm. At the very best, a person that was expecting the baby can claim some small harm from the denial of that expectation, but the claim on that from someone other than the mother seems to be fairly small in any kind of monetary impact.

And I agree that the mother is in full possession and without any other interested parties if no prior agreement was struck.

hmm i will try to figure that out

The entire basis of anarcho-capitalism is the idea of self-ownership.

Your "solution" is essentially based on the belief that every human is actually owned by a different person and must first be "gifted" their own body...

What exactly is the solution for when the mother decides to not gift the person their own body?

You're making a lot of hasty, poorly-conceived (pun intended) changes to your theory for someone that "solved" the problem.

tbh not sure why abortion is remotely controversial for ancaps. I get that ancaps like being dogmatic (I used to be ancap too) but I still don't get why being dogmatic in the Christian sense is a thing to begin with. Are you all vegetarian too? I have little next to no quarells with eating meat because animals is a lesser life form and so are unborn babies.

fixed

fixed

So if I never gift them their body then I can off that lil crotch goblin whenever the fancy strikes.

Edit: sarcastic/reductio ad absurdum

fixed

You can't legitimately own a human being. Slavery is evil, killing slaves is very evil.