He's a repeat offender. He was convicted on multiple counts. Strictly speaking, he's not just a rapist, he's a serial rapist.
But I do think we'd agree about plea bargains. They let the guilty off scot free and let the overworked, underfunded judicial system off the hook when it comes to innocent defendants.
He didn't get convicted of rape and being unlikeable. He was convicted of rape. The penalty being assessed is the penalty for rape. Whatever else he may have done, good or bad, he did the rape. He should pay the penalty for the rape that he did. If he collects money for disabled children on Sundays, he shouldn't be punished less, he should pay the penalty for rape. If he's a jerk who gets drunk on weeknights and starts his political opinions with "I'm not racist, but..." he shouldn't be penalized additionally for that. He should be penalized for rape. This thing where we make room for "He's a rapist, but..." is fucking garbage. It reeks of Brock Turner's dad trying to reduce the lifetime of harm his son inflicted on a woman to "10 minutes of action". If a rapist who operates a puppy rescue is less of a rapist than a rapist who does other things we all agree to be unpleasant then it's not about the harm inflicted, it's about how much we all generally like the rapist.
It doesn't make them rapists by proxy, but it does make them someone who believes the rapist they like should be the exception.
Condemn him? No. Judge him? Yeah, a little bit.
Turns out that being against rape in 99.9% of cases isn't good enough.
Seconding this. I don't do psychedelics anymore but Uncle Ben tek has grown me plenty of oysters and is currently working some lions mane. The technique is more or less the same and I learned from people who were focused on growing cubensis.
The one downvote on this comment should own it publicly. Come on, stand up and be counted you fucking Free Speech Warrior(tm)
Me: Can we do something about the Nazis?
Them: Now, now, we can't make ideas illegal even if they're morally detestable. That would be quite a slippery slope. After all, imagine what it would be like if government had that power and someone who disagreed with you was in charge.
Me: Well that's a relief, I can feel comfortable knowing that my rights are protected even as a {any ideology left of Reagan}.
Them: cocks shotgun Don't push it...
Sounds like they used public money to pay the startup costs of a private security firm, and in exchange for that they write a bunch of bogus tickets so the town makes money
They don't have any problem figuring out what to charge me after I sign up. Whatever process they use for that they can use to tell me what it's going to cost before I agree. Unless internet access is like healthcare and nobody has any idea what anything costs and your bill is full of $40 Advils and charges for services you never received.
People love narratives that are simple and have an easy to understand moral to them even if they're absolutely wrong. In this case, the narrative is that she asked for hot coffee and got hot coffee, and the moral is that people are greedy and stupid and you have to protect yourself from them. I've often found that one well-constructed point can blow these narratives up though. I was talking with my dad about this particular case, he's a big "gotta do something about these frivolous lawsuits" guy because he used to own a business that was adjacent to real estate and real estate is probably the most litigated business in America. I'm a big "frivolous lawsuits is a term exploitative industries use to get people excited to give up their rights" guy, so we were at loggerheads about this one. Eventually I was like "Have you ever spilled coffee? When you did, who paid for your skin grafts?" Turns out that when crafting their narrative about how she was "suing them for giving her what she asked for", the industry lobby left out the part where she had to spend 8 days in the hospital and have multiple reconstructive surgeries.