I don’t “get you” because your argument is non-sensical.

You’re saying that you want a legal system where everyone receives the same treatment but then in the same breath arguing that an exception should be made for Luigi because Trump hasn’t been punished.

That’s only true in a general sense. Regardless a key component of “doing science” is to reproduce the results of others.

That’s not how science & research works.

We test the things we think we know and publish our findings.

If only there were some way you could kind of refer viewers to the primary documentation for the project.

It’s not that it’s uncommon, but slightly different for each project.

I collated library would be kinda cool.

That said, I don’t know how much utility this project would have.

you ‘equally’ refuse to allow the punishment of defendant by returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict

That’s not what equally means. The same law needs to be applied to everyone. Making exceptions creates inequality.

Luigi was acting in self defense

If that is Luigi’s legal defense then the jury needs to weigh the evidence of that claim and if supported of course they would return a not-guilty verdict. That’s not jury nullification.

‘not guilty’, regardless of the letter of the law.

This is, quite obviously, a corruption of the legal process. If jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal process then why aren’t jurors instructed to find the defendant guilty, not-guilty, or exempt? Why don’t defense attorneys tell jury’s that the application of the law in this case is unjust and therefore they should find the defendant not guilty?

Your fixation with DeSiGnInG RoBuSt sYsTeMs is absurd. It doesn’t support your position in any way. I could just as well say that you obviously don’t have a job that requires much thought or requires you to consider complex problems with unquantifiable ethical aspects.

You thinking about this for a long time also does not support your position in any way. People can believe in all sorts of nonsense their entire lives. The inflexibility and inability to support your position is a pretty good indicator that you haven’t really thought about this but merely like how the concept feels.

If you actually read the wiki page, you will find it supports everything I’ve said.

No.

That’s just a silly metaphor.

Suggesting that dems would win more votes by being further left is contrary to established political science.

Sure ok but in a democracy the presumption is that law makers have the support of the public.

In this specific case most (maybe all?) Australian state’s and territories have already enacted similar laws, the federal law just reinforces them. That doesn’t really seem tyrannical?

It’s not really an assumption. Clearly, education and awareness has been insufficient.

Juries decide whether defendants are guilty of the charges against them. They do not decide whether the law ought to apply. If you don’t understand the difference then you’re right… I’m not going to be able to put an argument before you that you’ll be able to comprehend.

It’s patently obvious to everyone that a fair and just system of laws needs to apply equally to everyone, even in cases where we dislike the victim.

You’re correct in that the jury prevents a corrupt government from convicting innocent people.

That’s why a jury’s role is to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty. You will note there’s no third option for a jury to return a verdict of “guilty but exempt”.

Do you really want a court system where 12 idiots decide whether the law should apply? That’s the antithesis of a fair and just legal system.

Yeah well, it wasn’t intended to be all positive.

I migrated all my stuff (small business) to mxroute because I couldn’t justify the cost for fasmtail.

That’s a fair point. I didn’t really post it thinking “this anecdote supports this law”. I just think it’s worth remembering the insidious manner in which these organisations encroach on society.

Obviously laws are intended to be policed through governmental force, but they’re also a communication regarding what a society considers acceptable.

For example, if a society legislates that the age of consent is 16, then people being charged with statutory rape is only a small part of the impact of that law. In Australia we literally have police giving presentations in schools to ensure that teenagers are aware of the laws that exist to protect them, and how something that might seem innocent to a 15 year old (like sending your crush a photo of your boobs or something), can have dire consequences. In summary, the existence of the law is society standing together and sending a very clear message that some behaviors are unacceptable, a formalisation of social intolerance if you will.

Fascist organisations have been successfully recruiting, and it seems like they’re gaining momentum. Sure some bar might be able to keep skin heads out, but “soft” social intolerance very obviously is inadequate.

The thing is, these groups don’t start with hatred right off the bat. A normal kid might see a fascist organisation as some kind of boys club. Cool iconography, loyalty, camaraderie, whats not to like? The existence of this law will ensure that people are aware of the depravity of this ideology and reduce their ability to seduce recruits by deception.

It’s the server that matters, not the domain.

If you do this it’s good to use something like mxroute as an SMTP server so deliverability is their problem.

Can I ask what client you prefer?

I dislike thunderbird and roundcube.

I was with fastmail for more than a decade.

They’re the best platform.

Their spam protection is so-so. Not as good as Gmail but better than some others.

Their pricing is egregiously expensive.

Their tech support is painfully slow for anything above chatGPT level.

They couldn’t win an election as diet republicans.

They’re not going to win if they move further left.

That’s just in this term though.

There’s a ratchet effect over many decades.