Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis wrote character references for the sentencing part of the trial. It's amazing to see them maintain their integrity even in the face of putting targets on their backs for this ongoing witch hunt. Especially since the judge running this kangaroo court refused to take them into account.
I can't figure out Ashton Kutcher. He seems to be against child trafficking but refuses to turn in his Hollywood buddies. He got groomed by Demi Moore for a while which is never a good thing.
Maybe he's a good dude or maybe he is a total fraud.
The extent of my knowledge about Ashton Kutcher is that he played Hyde Kelso in That '70s show and Charlie Sheen's replacement in Two and a Half Men, and I only learned the former from this story. Needless to stay I'm not the best person to judge his character. His willingness to stand up to the woke mob and try to help Danny is a good sign.
Good catch. That one was a typo. I knew the guy on trial played Hyde. I only knew Kutcher as the guy who replaced Charlie Sheen until today, which is weird because I watched a decent amount of That '70s show.
Yeah I saw that in college a couple years back. I was a couple years older from the military and some of those girls were SALTY I was dating their 20-something friends. Funnily enough those girls still don't have any relationships years later.
This is the issue with our legal system. The standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". That means there is no other plausible explanation; not a single one that isn't so far-fetched that it can't possibly have happened.
Under this standard, they shouldn't even be allowed to bring cases to trial where only evidence is the statement of one party against another. Even if you find the accuser's version of events more compelling, or even extremely probable, by definition it's he-said/she-said, and the accused's version of events is at least possible, if not probable, barring the introduction of evidence to dispute it.
It's impossible to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt without any sort of corroborating evidence beyond a single witness's testimony. And that's when they have been comprehensive and consistent in their accusations from day one. The fact that this person changed their story multiple times undermines them even further. Because of this #believeallwomen trash, I'm seeing more and more cases that are successfully prosecuted without any evidence beyond an accusation.
And allowing the prosecution to accuse the defendent of drugging people without presenting any evidence is beyond the pale. The only upside is that the judge doing that should guarantee an appeal.
That's why "rape" is the most controversial of all crimes. Because its one that basically only ever has the "victim's" statement as evidence. Rape kits are basically a placebo, and drugs aren't as common as women want you to think.
So its a bit of a situation, because rape is a crime that should be punished and taken seriously but our legal system is basically unequipped to logically deal with it in the manner its setup for.
And history has shown that women love to just outright lie about it. One of the quintessential pieces of American Literature (To Kill a Mockingbird) uses it as the entire core of the story, and its treated so lightly that its background material and given a dozen excuses to not blame her for.
So its unfortunately an unsolvable problem. Because the only way to fairly and justly deal with it, requires women to be honorable and honest people. Which just lol.
drugs aren't as common as women want you to think.
The truth is women can't drink like men, but they try to anyways, and they make shit decisions they regret afterwards, and society offers them an easy out - "it wasn't your decision, you're not responsible for your choices."
If you were cognizant, you're responsible for what you said and did. If you were insensate, you're not responsible for what was done to you, but that's a tiny fraction of a fraction of cases.
Any judgement other than responsibility for your actions while drunk must logically also absolve women of the consequences of drunk driving.
Wasnt there a case where both the dude and woman was drunk.. but then the woman cried rape and the dude got in trouble?? Lawl. For some reason, the woman isnt responsible for her actions under influence, but the dude was.
Many such cases. The Western world runs on the implicit assumption that women are not men in the same way that children are not men. They have rights beyond those of children, usurped, but no responsibilities beyond those of children.
It's simply a tool for older boomers to retain power and control.
Cult leaders found the easiest way to control men was to get the women around them to degrade and humiliate them. The left is the part of the-worst-of-women and they love walzing into 2 people younger than them heading towards getting together and completely screwing them over.
Combine that with the fact that men drink way too much in our culture, already. I cannot, for the life of me, understand what the appeal is of getting so drunk that you don't remember the night before, and that you vomit. That sounds awful. There are about a million things I would rather do than that.
Getting a little tipsy and goofing off with friends? Sure I get the appeal of that. I haven't really done that since shortly after my college days, but I understand it. Blackout drunk or ending the night over a toilet? That sucks.
They enjoy what they are doing at the time regret it later, and it's the oldest story in the world. Didn't a couple of Biblical women fuck their father?
Lot's daughters supposedly got him blind drunk and took turns pretending to be their mother after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, believing themselves to be the last humans alive.
I never bought the "double creation" thing. Genesis, like, summarizes what God did and then goes into the details later. They're not contradictory stories.
Because women hate each other. Many accusations of witchcraft came from other "witches" who were simply making petty claims against other women they disliked for any number of reasons. I actually have ancestors who were part of this where one women who was already named as a witch, and therefore going to be executed, just went balls to the walls at the end and took half a dozen other women with her by claiming they were also witches. This wasn't in the USA so no urgot poisoning as is thought to have been related to Salem.
"Witchcraft" is how (one way) Satanism propagated. These women knew they were the enemies of Christianity. I guess people today argue that one has that right. Puritans disagreed.
They're white people so it's ok to say they're savages.
Every society on Earth had the same idea about women's rights, then some mysterious things happened and now you lose your job if you say men and women are biologically different in front of the wrong person.
This news is all over the the media. Almost posted on it myself. This is not good news as regardless if he did the crimes or not this means men can go to jail for decades old crime based on hearsay.
Basically any man that has ever had a private interaction with a woman in commiefornia has the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head for the rest of his life.
Hell, even any man who hasn't had one. Basically, any man in California at all. And, to be honest, not just California. I live in a state that leans red and I'm confident a woman I've never met before could ruin my life with a random accusation. Even if I never get charged with anything, and even if my core friends and most of my family backs me up, I'm confident something like that could strongly impact my life in a negative way.
These narratives are driven to entertain older women who aren't capable of having children any more. They take their rage about being past youth out on the youth.
He left Scientology. This seems to have upset some people.
Edit: That's what I heard initially. It's unclear whether he left but the church has defended him in the past. Given the sentence I figure he did something to really piss the church off. Either way, Scientology is involved.
Typically, MeToo cultists take your job, they don't go to court with it.
There's a story of escalation.
It's like someone who is fascinated with dead animals at first, then they move to killing live animals, then they move to torturing live animals then killing them, then one day some they're upset with a person and no one is around...
These narratives escalate exactly like that. It's not driven by a person with a consistent belief that doesn't change.
Meanwhile the central park five gang raped a women into a coma and got $20 million reward.
Yeah, but some other guy raped her after they were done with her, so they're totally innocent.
NYC was a madhouse back then. Honestly surprised it hasn't happened again considering where they're at now
Would we hear about it now?
That crossed my mind. Chilling thought. Someone consuming alt media would pick up on it though... probably.
Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis wrote character references for the sentencing part of the trial. It's amazing to see them maintain their integrity even in the face of putting targets on their backs for this ongoing witch hunt. Especially since the judge running this kangaroo court refused to take them into account.
I can't figure out Ashton Kutcher. He seems to be against child trafficking but refuses to turn in his Hollywood buddies. He got groomed by Demi Moore for a while which is never a good thing.
Maybe he's a good dude or maybe he is a total fraud.
The extent of my knowledge about Ashton Kutcher is that he played
HydeKelso in That '70s show and Charlie Sheen's replacement in Two and a Half Men, and I only learned the former from this story. Needless to stay I'm not the best person to judge his character. His willingness to stand up to the woke mob and try to help Danny is a good sign.Spez: Fixed a typo that was pointed out to me.
Kutcher played Kelso. Masterson played Hyde.
Good catch. That one was a typo. I knew the guy on trial played Hyde. I only knew Kutcher as the guy who replaced Charlie Sheen until today, which is weird because I watched a decent amount of That '70s show.
I remember him more from Dude, Where's My Car
No and then
A 25 year old Child Actor probably has the mental competency of a ten year old.
I see a lot of retarded shit on here including my own posts but this is way up there man, lmfao.
stop infantilizing grown ass adults
He might be joking, but a distressing number of millennial and zoomer women think like that for real.
They simultaneously think you're a sick freak for dating a 20-something woman, but are all for pedophillic grooming. It's insane its
Dating women in their 20s is heterosexual and they absolutely cannot stand that.
Yeah I saw that in college a couple years back. I was a couple years older from the military and some of those girls were SALTY I was dating their 20-something friends. Funnily enough those girls still don't have any relationships years later.
How old is Britney Spears and why does she continue to produce tabloid entertainment?
Attention addiction?
This is the issue with our legal system. The standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". That means there is no other plausible explanation; not a single one that isn't so far-fetched that it can't possibly have happened.
Under this standard, they shouldn't even be allowed to bring cases to trial where only evidence is the statement of one party against another. Even if you find the accuser's version of events more compelling, or even extremely probable, by definition it's he-said/she-said, and the accused's version of events is at least possible, if not probable, barring the introduction of evidence to dispute it.
It's impossible to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt without any sort of corroborating evidence beyond a single witness's testimony. And that's when they have been comprehensive and consistent in their accusations from day one. The fact that this person changed their story multiple times undermines them even further. Because of this #believeallwomen trash, I'm seeing more and more cases that are successfully prosecuted without any evidence beyond an accusation.
And allowing the prosecution to accuse the defendent of drugging people without presenting any evidence is beyond the pale. The only upside is that the judge doing that should guarantee an appeal.
That's why "rape" is the most controversial of all crimes. Because its one that basically only ever has the "victim's" statement as evidence. Rape kits are basically a placebo, and drugs aren't as common as women want you to think.
So its a bit of a situation, because rape is a crime that should be punished and taken seriously but our legal system is basically unequipped to logically deal with it in the manner its setup for.
And history has shown that women love to just outright lie about it. One of the quintessential pieces of American Literature (To Kill a Mockingbird) uses it as the entire core of the story, and its treated so lightly that its background material and given a dozen excuses to not blame her for.
So its unfortunately an unsolvable problem. Because the only way to fairly and justly deal with it, requires women to be honorable and honest people. Which just lol.
The truth is women can't drink like men, but they try to anyways, and they make shit decisions they regret afterwards, and society offers them an easy out - "it wasn't your decision, you're not responsible for your choices."
If you were cognizant, you're responsible for what you said and did. If you were insensate, you're not responsible for what was done to you, but that's a tiny fraction of a fraction of cases.
Any judgement other than responsibility for your actions while drunk must logically also absolve women of the consequences of drunk driving.
Wasnt there a case where both the dude and woman was drunk.. but then the woman cried rape and the dude got in trouble?? Lawl. For some reason, the woman isnt responsible for her actions under influence, but the dude was.
Many such cases. The Western world runs on the implicit assumption that women are not men in the same way that children are not men. They have rights beyond those of children, usurped, but no responsibilities beyond those of children.
It's simply a tool for older boomers to retain power and control.
Cult leaders found the easiest way to control men was to get the women around them to degrade and humiliate them. The left is the part of the-worst-of-women and they love walzing into 2 people younger than them heading towards getting together and completely screwing them over.
Combine that with the fact that men drink way too much in our culture, already. I cannot, for the life of me, understand what the appeal is of getting so drunk that you don't remember the night before, and that you vomit. That sounds awful. There are about a million things I would rather do than that.
Getting a little tipsy and goofing off with friends? Sure I get the appeal of that. I haven't really done that since shortly after my college days, but I understand it. Blackout drunk or ending the night over a toilet? That sucks.
They enjoy what they are doing at the time regret it later, and it's the oldest story in the world. Didn't a couple of Biblical women fuck their father?
Lot's daughters supposedly got him blind drunk and took turns pretending to be their mother after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, believing themselves to be the last humans alive.
I suppose no one ever really talks about where Adam and Eve's grandchildren came from.
I feel like at least the English translation implies the existence of other humans, but it's been a while since I looked at Genesis.
I never bought the "double creation" thing. Genesis, like, summarizes what God did and then goes into the details later. They're not contradictory stories.
Yep. Women lie so much more than men. White lies every day. They will lie if there is a good reason for them.
Ain't even just white lies. To quote Chris Rock back when he was an honest man:
A meaningless white lie and a life shattering lie like that come to them exactly as easily and naturally.
There was a reason witches were burned.
Because women hate each other. Many accusations of witchcraft came from other "witches" who were simply making petty claims against other women they disliked for any number of reasons. I actually have ancestors who were part of this where one women who was already named as a witch, and therefore going to be executed, just went balls to the walls at the end and took half a dozen other women with her by claiming they were also witches. This wasn't in the USA so no urgot poisoning as is thought to have been related to Salem.
"Witchcraft" is how (one way) Satanism propagated. These women knew they were the enemies of Christianity. I guess people today argue that one has that right. Puritans disagreed.
They're white people so it's ok to say they're savages.
So what's the basis of the stuff people do today? Are there not Satan worshippers?
Again Satan worshippers.
Probably occasionally women who wouldn't fuck the village elder as well.
That was just antisemitism!
Every society on Earth had the same idea about women's rights, then some mysterious things happened and now you lose your job if you say men and women are biologically different in front of the wrong person.
This news is all over the the media. Almost posted on it myself. This is not good news as regardless if he did the crimes or not this means men can go to jail for decades old crime based on hearsay.
Unless there are verified physical defense wounds or an actual drug screening, it’s not rape.
Basically any man that has ever had a private interaction with a woman in commiefornia has the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head for the rest of his life.
Hell, even any man who hasn't had one. Basically, any man in California at all. And, to be honest, not just California. I live in a state that leans red and I'm confident a woman I've never met before could ruin my life with a random accusation. Even if I never get charged with anything, and even if my core friends and most of my family backs me up, I'm confident something like that could strongly impact my life in a negative way.
The court of public opinion has no provision for appeals.
If they could take out Cosby, they can take out anyone.
they really want to make the reproductive process a massive liability for men, don't they?
These narratives are driven to entertain older women who aren't capable of having children any more. They take their rage about being past youth out on the youth.
i heard about this a while back. i was under the impression he was guilty AF... but everyone here is acting like that's not the case at all.
danny's into scientology. that alone makes me believe he did it. those fuckers are crazy.
https://www.youtube.com/@GrowingUpInScientology
this a guy that was raised in that "church" and escaped. he talks like danny definitely did it.
Curly hair - Don't care.
He left Scientology. This seems to have upset some people.
Edit: That's what I heard initially. It's unclear whether he left but the church has defended him in the past. Given the sentence I figure he did something to really piss the church off. Either way, Scientology is involved.
Honestly if that's true then the rest of the story is irrelevant because its all just a coverup for that.
Oh rly? That explains a lot. I would've thought scientology could easily keep any rapey shit quiet, as they do with the slavery and other stuff.
You're missing the point. Scientology will maliciously attack you any way they can if you leave.
There's a story of escalation.
It's like someone who is fascinated with dead animals at first, then they move to killing live animals, then they move to torturing live animals then killing them, then one day some they're upset with a person and no one is around...
These narratives escalate exactly like that. It's not driven by a person with a consistent belief that doesn't change.