Sounds like there’s a lot more to this puzzle than just a “no stupid question”.

For me; I suffered a Catholic school with undiagnosed Autism. That’ll turn anyone against it.

Calling the idea that ‘men must control their urges’ ‘incel level shit’ is a complete inversion of reality.

Incel ideology is defined by a lack of accountability, entitlement, and blaming women for one’s own frustrations. The other user was explicitly advocating for self-restraint, personal responsibility, and prosocial behavior.

Someone just watched The Box lol

Damnit.

Gross.

I own it but I absolutely suck. I think you’d prefer it if I didn’t play Peak with you 😅

He’s a spoiled nepo-baby who had a dogwater take and instead of learning and growing from it has doubled-down.

The Flammarion engraving is one of my all time favourites.

Linux.

That is cool. Nice shot!

Bong after beer and you’ll feel queer.

he was a saint!

Jesus Christ!

How much money was wasted on this pointless endeavour?

Why wouldn’t they?

FWIW it’s “pull” not “pool”.

Thanks for your reply.

We agree on the core principle: we shouldn’t execute people when there’s doubt. The disagreement I have is about whether the system can ever be certain enough.

I’d argue that even cases that seem airtight at trial have fallen apart later (new evidence, recanted testimony, exposed misconduct etc etc…) If we acknowledge that human judgment is fallible, then a system with no “undo” means we’re gambling with lives we can never give back.

Maybe the real question isn’t whether we could find enough people we’re sure about but whether any government should have the power to make that kind of irreversible mistake.

To be clear: I understand we’re fundamentally on different ends of the table on this topic (and that’s okay). I wanted to share my thoughts on it with you, not tell you you’re wrong.

I appreciate you hearing me out!