If they are our allies then they will let us criticize them. Only an enemy tries to censor their supposed "friends" from ever criticizing their actions.
Think about your actual friends in life. You can discuss racism openly with them. Do you have friends of different races? You can discuss stereotypes and make racist jokes. No one cares. The only people who censor are your enemies. The people who aren't your friends because to them race and censorship is about power and control.
Exactly. This is the most important part. By charging the accomplices with murder you're demeaning the choices of the people who died and are suggesting they may not have made the decision to commit the crime had it not been for the accomplices. You aren't fully attributing the consequences of the actions of the people who died to themselves. You're transferring responsibility onto the accomplices which isn't right. These people who died are FULLY responsible for their own actions.
Correct, the definition doesn't matter.
Let's look at it objectively from a justice perspective. The purpose of justice is making sure people get what they deserve.
If someone breaks into a house and attempts to murder someone. They chose to break-in (a crime), they also chose to try and murder someone. They are responsible for that. Are they responsible for the deaths of their accomplices? No, they didn't kill their accomplices. The argument that, well if they didn't choose to commit the crime their accomplices wouldn't have died so they are responsible for the deaths doesn't actually hold. You're assuming that had they not committed the crime their accomplices wouldn't have committed the crime which suggests the accomplices aren't fully responsible for the actions they took. By charging these people with murder, you're actually down-playing the actions and choices of the people who died.
Think about it from the perspective of the mother of the criminal who died. This is what you're telling the mother... Your Johnny who attempted to murder someone wasn't a bad boy, it was his accomplices who were responsible for Johnny's death not Johnny himself, which is why we're charging his accomplices with murder. The mother blames the accomplices for Johnny's death. He was a good boy but got in with the wrong crowd! His accomplices are the real murderers! That's not true at all. Johnny is fully responsible for his own death. He made the choice to commit the crimes and the consequences of his choices was death. Even if his accomplices didn't commit the crimes, Johnny still would have committed those crimes so charging his accomplices with murder makes no sense since Johnny killed himself not his accomplices. Now the mother cannot blame the accomplices and has to come to terms with the fact that Johnny himself was responsible for his own death due to the poor choices Johnny made. That is justice. That is the proper way to view this.
By charging the accomplices with murder you're actually defending Johnny and suggesting Johnny was not fully responsible for his own death when in fact he was.
The 2 people who died created that situation and their deaths were the punishment for their acts. That is justice. They got what they deserved. To then punish someone for justice being enacted is wrong.
The law is entirely unjust and you should be lucky it isn't applied to you. The moment it is applied to you, you'll understand its injustice. If a Proud Boy kills someone should Donald Trump be held responsible? Taken to the extreme that is the kind of justification you give to leftists.
What Pence should do is just count the electoral votes so that Trump has the most. Even if it's live broadcast. 20 Votes for Biden from GA. Pence: "Alright, and that's 20 more votes for Trump. Trump now has the 270. Trump is the next President. Congratulations President Trump."
Then Trump accepts and they carry on as if Trump is President.
Because the deaths were justified so charging them with murder makes no sense. These two people chose our their own agency to commit the crimes and thus assumed responsibility for the risks. Their accomplices are not responsible for their deaths. The people who died are responsible for their deaths.
Climate change was discussed in the 80s and I'm sure there were even discussions of it prior to that.
I don't doubt Al Gore & Co and the Clintons used it to their advantage and brought it more into mainstream politics but they didn't invent it. Al Gore definitely saw how he could exploit it.
The homeowners did not murder anyone. Self defense means the person killed was justly killed and not murdered hence no punishment.
The people who died deserved to die. They got what they deserve. Punishing someone for the deaths of someone who deserved to die doesn't make sense. Whether you punish the self-defense person or the accomplish, by punishing anyone for the other person's death you're suggesting the fact they died was not a good thing but in these circumstances, their deaths were in fact justified so no one should be punished for it.
Murder
The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder
We can sit here and argue technicalities. The fact of the matter is did these people murder anyone? And the answer is no.
I wouldn't say that's who invented it. It was definitely invented by social justice warriors who wanted to latch onto something to feel special for saving the world.
The Chinese are using it to exploit Americans for their own benefit but they didn't create it. The neoliberal elite in the USA have now adopted it to enhance their own wealth by exploiting the sheep.
Yup, you get it. They had agency. They made the decision. It is no one's fault except their own that they died. They weren't murdered because they were justly killed. The charges against these people for what they actually did is more than enough to lock them away. Charging them with murder is not justice.
Because the people who were killed weren't murdered. They were justly killed which isn't murder. By charging them with murder you're suggesting it was a bad thing that the people who died ended up dead, which it wasn't because they forfeited their life when they committed the crime.
All part of the natural cycle. Women need to destabilize civilizations from the inside so that stronger civilizations can take over rather than have one dominant civilization forever and we can continue this song and dance forever. This cycle has been going on since forever.
Keep in mind though that it's ultimately men who fail because men just go along with what women want. Men, once their civilization becomes dominant and wealthy fail to control the women every single time.
You're correct that communism is a feminine ideology. Lots of people don't understand that. The Greeks even joked that if women ruled society it would be communist long before the word was even coined. Ultimately, the way to correct for women and fix society is to remove all welfare state, redistribution spending like subsidies for single parents, ban abortion, make adultery illegal and get men to work together to only value virgins. Women who sleep with multiple men should be not accepted by virtuous men. Also, ban immigration and allow for segregation in work/school. You fix those things and society will correct it.
I agree calling is good. What I'm trying to say is that it isn't enough. After people finish work for the day, they should be marching on the capital buildings in their city. Every single day. At the very least. Bring weapons if your city allows them.