there’s a difference between a shitpost amd a shitty post

him?

I know

there’s a meme in your watermark

This has got to be some kind of sexist spitpost, right?

I don’t get it

If people want a twitter alternative, why don’t they just go to mastodon instead of threads?

ah yes, free speech for everyone

the age of the women really isn’t the problem here. if a woman is 18+ she can fuck whoever she wants, even men thrice her age. even girls between 16 and 18 are legally allowed to have sex with much older men, as long as they aren’t compensated for it.

the problem here is rather the lack of consent. many women report being sexually assaulted or even drugged and raped.

bet this shit be hella not bussin frfr ong no cap

zoomerspeak gives me cancer

>is just sitting in a corner during the whole movie

kino

there’s a difference between a shitpost and a shit post

OMG IT’S JUST LIKE THE H*CKING “like if you’re breathing air too” COMMENTERINOS I KNOW FROM YT!1!! SO FRICKING RELATABLE AHAHA!!!1!!1! THAT’S LITERALLY MEEE XDDDD!1!! NOW I MUST GIVE IT A LIKE BECAUSE I’M DOING IT TOO LMFAOOO!!1!!!1 LOOOLLLL!!!11!

still, it’s a waste of food

youtube tier upvote/like farming

the law is determined by the will of the people […] so yeah criminality is subject to opinion

this doesn’t matter. a judge only cares about somebody’s actions and what the law says about these actions. jurisprudence isn’t democracy. if the majority of people thinks that someone is guilty it doesn’t matter. what matters is if they violated laws and that can only be evaluated by a professional. so if the majority of people thinks that Bush for example is a war criminal it doesn’t matter if he didn’t violate any laws. of course this goes the other way around too: if 99% of people think that he isn’t a criminal, but he violated laws, he is guilty. the majority of people can’t decide whether someone is guilty or not.

of course the majority of people votes the government which passes laws to it’s voter’s liking, so there’s a big intersection between existing laws and the will of the many. but ultimately the judge doesn’t care about all of this. for them it’s simply “does action violate law?”. outside of this question nothing matters.

Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be criminal. […] This word is being used with the definition of “A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.”

we’re talking about war crimes not crimes in general. a war criminal is someone who commits war crimes. according to britannica a war crime is a “serious violation of the laws or customs of war as defined by international customary law and international treaties.” this has nothing to do with morality it is pure jurisprudence.

Following the Nuremberg principals they would actually all be war criminals

ok let’s just say that you know what you’re talking about and that this is true. why would you hold todays presidents accountable according to laws 80 years in the past? like everyone else, the should be convicted according to todays laws, if they broke them.

almost no one is educated sufficiently in the field of immunology to judge for themselves

yes, this is why you believe the people who know the science, who studied immunology/law

you are always dependent on trust. And if the government has over and over again shown to be completely untrustworthy…

regarding vaccines you don’t have to trust the government, you have to trust the scientists. just because the government (who isn’t trustworthy) trusts them too, doesn’t mean they’re suddenly wrong. as for the war criminal debate this means that if the government says that the presidents aren’t war criminals, you don’t have to believe them. you have to believe the experts who studied law on whether the presidents did something illegal or not.

all I’m saying is that it isn’t an opinion whether someone is a criminal, there are qualified experts who can evaluate this. if you’re not one of those you can’t make a qualified statement on this and if you do you can be called out for it.

I need you to understand that if I call someone out for making an unqualified statement on a legal topic that doesn’t mean that I don’t want people to ‘participate in democracy unless they have the right credentials’. it means that I don’t want people to make statements on legal topics unless they have the right credentials.

whether they’re war criminals isn’t a democratic opinion. there are experts that know the laws and check if the president’s actions go against them.

it’s the same with the vaccine discussion. saying “vaccines make children autistic” has nothing to do with ‘participating in democracy’. the people who are saying this bullshit obviously don’t have the right credentials and therefore can’t make a qualified statement to whether vaccines are safe or not.

I’m sure you studied law and are qualified to make this statement