illliillll

> This is an unhinged ad hominem attack

Do you see any fighting words from me? No? That's because there were none. It is downright hilarious of you to accuse me of an "ad hominem attack".

You call me barbaric and unhinged because you find my opinion unpleasant. You turned the conversation to personal attacks, and you chose to make my criticism of your person relevant to the conversation.

Of course it is relevant that you, the person accusing me of being barbaric, are someone who voluntarily hands out their money to fund executions.

Maybe consider whether or not this approach to moderation truly helps you reach the goal you desire. You could equally well have asked me to use less inflammatory wording without resorting to irrelevant personal attacks.

> who operate for months unimpeded.

So wait, it seems like you're claiming that you're receiving spam from the same gmail/outlook address for months.

This is fascinating and I have a hard time believing it, might you be able to share some headers?

OTOH, if the spammers are forced to frequently switch accounts, they're clearly being impeded.

Now consider time zones.

FIFA can't really exist in any way similar to it's current form without UEFA

> You're excluding about half of the planet by only mentioning Africa.

It's the half of the planet that nobody cares about when it comes to football.

Tom, you live in a democratic country where the death penalty is codified in law as a legitimate punishment for certain crimes.

What is it in the guidelines that should keep me from arguing in favour of expanding the scope of such penalties to also cover other, perhaps more harmful behaviour?

> is a barbaric, medieval reaction to a modern scenario.

You are inherently calling US voters at large barbarians and medieval here.

You may not share my views on how misconduct by judicial officials should be treated, but you can hardly condemn my opinion as illegitimate given the country you choose to live and pay taxes in. Taxes which fund executions carried out by your government.

What spammers are using the same domain for longer than couple of hours?

What do you expect to achieve by blocking an already abandoned domain?

Obsessing about intent here is so gross.

A careless psychopath firing a gun into a crowd doesn’t necessarily care if he hits anyone. Despite the lack of intent, most would consider that careless psychopath worse than an individual that commits premeditated homicide for a reason other than “fun”.

Intent is irrelevant. The person firing a gun into a crowd knows the consequences of their actions just as well as a lazy judge or prosecutor does.

Of course it wasn’t, this could never happen to a judge who is really serious about having things proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence presented in this case wouldn’t have satisfied that standard even if all the underscores lined up.

That’s absurd.

The standard in Canada is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, a standard which does not leave much room for “honest, human mistakes” if you actually take it seriously.

If the judge bothered to review the evidence, he’d presumably have been baffled by the fact that nothing has been recovered from the defendant connecting him to the crime. This judge chose to not do that and chose not to be baffled, that wasn’t an honest mistake.

Why are AI critics so lazy? Why does this have to be treated as a matter of faith rather than something to be logically reasoned about?

You can go on telegram and pay someone $10 to do the KYC for you.