Like I've said several times...neglect doesn't equal this. People who don't care about a child don't attack it, they just ignore it. The motive claimed doesn't go with the actions.
Yeah, no. I highly doubt a man would walk for this.
It was a suggestion, not a definitive answer. I still think the excuse will be a new variant that's deadlier and therefore that vaccine needs to be unblocked.
Could be incompetence. Has anyone seen the "professor" that created it? She was all over the place before people started dying.
Like I've said several times...neglect doesn't equal this.
And like I already answered, this was probably resentment over the kid depriving her of her ChildFree BS.
People who don't care about a child don't attack it, they just ignore it. The motive claimed doesn't go with the actions.
So we should also presume that men who abuse girls are acting out of misogyny?
Yeah, no. I highly doubt a man would walk for this.
You're changing the argument now. First you said that this sentence was due to the "female judge" and because of the gender of the kid, now you're saying that it's because of the gender of the offender. Make up your mind already.
If you think only female judges are soft on crime, and only when the offender is a woman, you have a much more positive view of the criminal justice system in the UK than I do.
It was a suggestion, not a definitive answer. I still think the excuse will be a new variant that's deadlier and therefore that vaccine needs to be unblocked.
Your 'suggestion' was that they would secretly inject people with AZ to kill them. That's pretty insane, innit?
Could be incompetence. Has anyone seen the "professor" that created it? She was all over the place before people started dying.
Considering that the cost-benefit ratio of the vaccine is still vastly positive, especially for older people, I don't think she has anything to be ashamed of. The fact that this has taken 'authorities' by surprise, however, shows that no one should put trust in theeeeem (the authorities).
Again, if you never ever, ever want a child, why wouldn't you get an abortion at the first sign of one?
Can men abort a child? What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
I'm not, I fully believe it was because the female judge wanted to let the woman off. Usually they at least spend a few months behind bars.
It was insane to believe in vaccine passports last year.
Fully agree. Despite the fact that I believe Pfizer is safe and even have an investment in Pfizer, I won't be getting the shot. I just don't trust the authorities to make the right decision after fucking up twice already. (AZ safe, J&J safe)
Again, if you never ever, ever want a child, why wouldn't you get an abortion at the first sign of one?
Again with this ridiculous argument from ignorance, which has already been addressed in a previous comment.
Can men abort a child? What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
It's not a non-sequitur. If you assume that a woman abusing a boy hates men, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I fully believe it was because the female judge wanted to let the woman off
Alright, so male judges don't go easy on female offenders. I'll make sure to remind you of that whenever you start whining about some other case where there is a male judge.
It was insane to believe in vaccine passports last year.
Not really. It was to be expected. But let's assume this arguendo. So that means that every one of your loony beliefs is not loony?
Fully agree. Despite the fact that I believe Pfizer is safe and even have an investment in Pfizer, I won't be getting the shot. I just don't trust the authorities to make the right decision after fucking up twice already. (AZ safe, J&J safe)
I am less worried about known side-effects, than about unknown side-effects. The rate of side-effects for both AZ and J&J is infinitesimal compared to toe good that vaccination does - at least for some groups. Authorities most certainly don't know about those, and yet they assert that these vaccines - all of them - are 'safe'. There certainly are higher-risk groups where you would take the risk of the unknown over the risk of the known, but that is not a great idea for young and healthy people.
Like I've said several times...neglect doesn't equal this. People who don't care about a child don't attack it, they just ignore it. The motive claimed doesn't go with the actions.
Yeah, no. I highly doubt a man would walk for this.
It was a suggestion, not a definitive answer. I still think the excuse will be a new variant that's deadlier and therefore that vaccine needs to be unblocked.
Could be incompetence. Has anyone seen the "professor" that created it? She was all over the place before people started dying.
And like I already answered, this was probably resentment over the kid depriving her of her ChildFree BS.
So we should also presume that men who abuse girls are acting out of misogyny?
You're changing the argument now. First you said that this sentence was due to the "female judge" and because of the gender of the kid, now you're saying that it's because of the gender of the offender. Make up your mind already.
If you think only female judges are soft on crime, and only when the offender is a woman, you have a much more positive view of the criminal justice system in the UK than I do.
Your 'suggestion' was that they would secretly inject people with AZ to kill them. That's pretty insane, innit?
Considering that the cost-benefit ratio of the vaccine is still vastly positive, especially for older people, I don't think she has anything to be ashamed of. The fact that this has taken 'authorities' by surprise, however, shows that no one should put trust in theeeeem (the authorities).
Again, if you never ever, ever want a child, why wouldn't you get an abortion at the first sign of one?
Can men abort a child? What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
I'm not, I fully believe it was because the female judge wanted to let the woman off. Usually they at least spend a few months behind bars.
It was insane to believe in vaccine passports last year.
Fully agree. Despite the fact that I believe Pfizer is safe and even have an investment in Pfizer, I won't be getting the shot. I just don't trust the authorities to make the right decision after fucking up twice already. (AZ safe, J&J safe)
Again with this ridiculous argument from ignorance, which has already been addressed in a previous comment.
It's not a non-sequitur. If you assume that a woman abusing a boy hates men, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Alright, so male judges don't go easy on female offenders. I'll make sure to remind you of that whenever you start whining about some other case where there is a male judge.
Not really. It was to be expected. But let's assume this arguendo. So that means that every one of your loony beliefs is not loony?
I am less worried about known side-effects, than about unknown side-effects. The rate of side-effects for both AZ and J&J is infinitesimal compared to toe good that vaccination does - at least for some groups. Authorities most certainly don't know about those, and yet they assert that these vaccines - all of them - are 'safe'. There certainly are higher-risk groups where you would take the risk of the unknown over the risk of the known, but that is not a great idea for young and healthy people.