Recent comments in /f/nottheonion

KeepTangoAndFoxtrot t1_j9jmyib wrote

Reply to Fifa claims Qatar World Cup to be carbon neutral, ‘experts’ say by Eldacar88

This post title is poorly worded. As is, it reads that experts are saying that Fifa is claiming that the Qatar World Cup was carbon neutral. It should say something closer to, "Fifa claims 'experts' deem Qatar World Cup carbon neutral."

The actual heading of the article: "Qatar World Cup: Fifa's carbon neutrality claim 'misleading and incredibly dangerous'". It's also from November 2022.

6

SpiritualPrize t1_j9jly69 wrote

Reply to Rep. Eastman sparks outrage after asking about the potential economic benefits of the deaths of abused Alaska children by HoboWithAComputer

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/republican-alaska-house-abortion-child-abuse-david-eastman-wasilla-amendment-pro-life-a7714751.html

A conservative state lawmaker has successfully tacked an anti-abortion message onto an otherwise innocuous resolution in the Alaska House aimed at raising awareness about sexual assault and child abuse.

The amendment from Republican Rep. David Eastman of Wasilla refers to abortion as “the ultimate form of child abuse.”

I get the impression he doesn't know whether he's washing or hanging out.

33

MofuckaJones14 t1_j9jk15p wrote

Reply to Rep. Eastman sparks outrage after asking about the potential economic benefits of the deaths of abused Alaska children by HoboWithAComputer

You know it's hilarious but also pretty sad that Republicans can say things like this and constantly pass bills that harm kids and yet their voters will say that they're the party that cares about children. I guess they just want to see their children struggle as much as possible whilst they grow up. That's pro-life for ya, I guess.

150

bbkknn t1_j9jh4n8 wrote

Reply to comment by Phorensick in Spanish transport secretary resigns after new trains too big for tunnels by metroracerUK

I'm sorry but that explanation is factually wrong but sadly this is what is being pushed by spanish politicians and media alike so it's no wonder foreign press got it wrong too.

Consent always has been an important point when judging sex crimes and the scandal of the Pamplona gang rape which sparked the new law had nothing to do with consent (the victim not consenting was never in doubt, otherwise there would be no crime) but with the aggravating factors. Both the initial court and the appeal court decided that the actions didn't qualify for agresion but for the less severe felony of abuse. Note that both abuse and agresion can qualify as rape or not and it was just a choice by the lawmaker to explicitly not use the word "rape" except in one instance.

Feminist groups got upset either by ignorance or by populistic takes on the matter and the slogan "it's no abuse, it's rape" became popular. But aggresion wasn't equal to rape but rape was an aggravating circumstance for both sexual aggresion and sexual abuse. The solution in the new law was to eliminate the "sexual abuse" and combine both abuse and aggresion into one felony. But by doing so they also combined minimum and maximum sentencing from the old crimes into the new one.

The spanish criminal code establishes that any new law that is more favourable to the offender has to be applied retroactively. The problem isn't per se that the minimum sentences have been reduced but that, by doing so, if the same crime was judged according to the new law and keeping all other circumstances the same a lower sentece would have been handed.

8