"Wholly imaginary"? So you're saying the revenge porn never happened? Nor the year he spent messaging a girl telling her she was fat and ugly and should kill herself?
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @geniecoefficnt
You're trying to tell me that there are other "facts" that, by explaining the reason he did these things, 1) remove all moral culpability for his having done them, and 2) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his "propensity" for having done them is completely gone
1 reply 1 retweet 74 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @geniecoefficnt
#2 is the really important one, and you have no such proof - no such proof can exist The best substitute we could have for proof would be a track record of him having spent a long time without doing anything comparably harmful again Which we don't, because it was 5 years ago
3 replies 1 retweet 86 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
"long time" as defined by Arthur Chu on the basis of nothing whatever
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @geniecoefficnt
No, as defined by the people he harmed who are coming out today to tell people not to vote for their abuser
1 reply 3 retweets 76 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
yes gauge his propensities on the basis of the duration of their resentment. Exactly why we execute people if their victims decree it. You're insane.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @geniecoefficnt
There's a big big difference between executing someone and not voting them into office! Not being voted into office isn't some kind of horrible punishment, I haven't been voted into office, nobody I know has been voted into office
8 replies 11 retweets 146 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
we're talking about the likelihood of a repeat offense, remember? And the relevance to that of the victims' emotional state. Try to keep things straight.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @geniecoefficnt
Yeah and the threshold for how willing you are to judge someone based on their past should be very high when it comes to throwing them into prison but very low when it comes to electing them into office Why is this so hard to understand
3 replies 17 retweets 135 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
I specifically ***mocked*** the idea that victims do or should decide sentencing, remember? Oh, you don't - the irony was lost on you - and that in itself is telling. Victims should decree the sentence, you say - but that's not how it is the real world or in a moral world, sry
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Not electing someone to office is not a "sentence"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.