@JonnyRoot_ Though I do agree, there is potentially a different kind of affection or care that the father would have for the son that didn't rebel, specifically during the time the rebellious son was away. I think there are blessings that are reserved for those that aren't in rebellion
@MikeWingerii@ImKingGinger Making descriptive statements based on overgeneralizations (i.e. Women are "x", "Most black churches are heretical"), shows poor reasoning skills and weak critical thinking which are statistically more common in those with low IQ.
@MikeWingerii@ImKingGinger If we're talking about his debate with Ruslan he categorically lost that debate. He didn't show his position was Biblical in any way. He wasn't even the most articulate person on his side of the debate.
@ThaddeusRussell I think it's all terrible and should never have happened. To me it appears she may not have even know he was in front of her car.
That said, I think people can simultaneously think the officer was likely justified and still believe it to be horibble.
@ThaddeusRussell Neither should be, but the majority of what I'm seeing isn't whether or not anyone "should" be shot, but rather if it was justified.
Saying someone should be shot is an endorsement of the action.
Saying the officer was justified is saying their actions met a legal standard
@jared_shult 1a. ICE clearly fits the part about being a government agency that enforces laws and maintains federal order.
ย 1b. ICE fits this definition as well, since it prevents, detects, and helps prosecute federal offenses.
@adamscochran@ProfDBernstein This applies whether the stop is for:
โข a traffic violation
โข a criminal suspicion
โข an investigative detention
โข obstruction of officers
โข any other lawful stop
@adamscochran@ProfDBernstein This isn't correct.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)
Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997)
These cases authorize officers to order drivers and passengers out of a vehicle during any lawful stop, including investigative detentions and obstruction-related stops.
@AdamPage85 I think the actual issue isn't necessarily that people are having him on their podcast, but more so that they aren't really contesting anything he is saying. They aren't challenging him or holding him accountable
@AdamPage85 I think in some sense we have a duty to our audiences. Would just introducing your audience to someone with very radical ideologies be harmful to them?