Cajoling or requiring people to behave in ways contrary to the reality of human nature ought to be treated as a mental health issue. But instead we grant them tenure.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/295462/

Cultural appropriation?

It's not your culture. You don't have title to it. You don't have a say in what we do. If I feel like "appropriating your culture" I'll do it and you'll sit there and stew. Buzz off and go try to get attention by actually accomplishing something @jere_bare.

https://twitter.com/KurtSchlichter/status/990610697095598080

And Iowahawk nails it again.

> https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/295462/

> I R A Darth Aggie at April 30, 2018 7:17 AM

Look at the first graphic on the University of Texas website - a pair of hands around a vagina -

https://cmhc.utexas.edu/vav/vav_masculinut_restrictive.html

"Help! My Husband Got a Vasectomy Without Telling Me."

https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/04/dear-prudence-what-should-i-do-if-my-husband-got-a-secret-vasectomy-against-my-wishes.html

She already had twins with him.

Some commentators are actually suggesting she divorce him - oh, great - but given her apparent belief that only SHE should get to make any decisions his fertility, one way or the other, most of them are with the husband.

What surprises me is that he was able to do this in secret. Btw, as I've mentioned before, when Warren Farrell complained in one of his books - "Father and Child Reunion" - about how difficult it can be for a married man to do that, since doctors tend to demand that the wife be notified first, what Farrell DIDN'T claim is that married female patients have it any better. So I'd guess that married women are under pressure to reveal when they're getting sterilized, too. (What doctor wants to get sued?)

Any woman who argues a man must get his wifes consent to have a vasectomy had better never object when some one claims women need a mans permission to have an abortion

I learned a new word from the aforementioned IowaHawk link: baizuo. Wait, it's a Chinese word. Am I infringing?

https://twitter.com/danicavassigh/status/990640311377555457

@IRA, I asked Jeremy Lam, the person complaining about the prom dress, if he meant only people from Maoist hellholes are allowed to wear that dress. That should get the hate going. Twitter timeout, here I come!!!

@IRA, only if you're White, are you then infringing. If you're Black, for example, you're obviously down with the struggle, and Mr. Lam won't mind.

So that's why the prophet liked cats, hmm?

https://twitter.com/SirajAHashmi/status/990821460980756481

I'd say a marriage where one member feels the need to do something that huge on the sly, is a marriage broken, probably beyond repair. I say the same for one the sly abortions, or birth control pills or IUD the partner isnt aware of.

If theres no trust and no communication, then there's no partnership and no marriage.

I'd say a marriage where one member feels the need to do something that huge on the sly, is a marriage broken, probably beyond repair. I say the same for one the sly abortions, or birth control pills or IUD the partner isnt aware of.

If theres no trust and no communication, then there's no partnership and no marriage.

> I'd say a marriage where one member feels the need
> to do something that huge on the sly, is a
> marriage broken, probably beyond repair.

An "oopsie" pregnancy when a wife wants a child and her husband doesn't would be nothing unusual, so he's smart to take precautions.

An interesting take on the Bill Cosby trial -

https://medium.com/@jimpreston_36730/bill-cosby-trial-sleazy-backwoods-justice-3e2b85dc664c

An "oopsie" pregnancy when a wife wants a child and her husband doesn't would be nothing unusual, so he's smart to take precautions.
______________________________________

Fair enough. Children should be wanted by both parents.

And re the Cosby trial...that reminds me of the Chester Gillette 1906 murder case in New York State; regarding his prison diary (released a century later), one reader said: "Be warned: if you're expecting to read a confession or even ruminations on the subject of Grace Brown, you'll be disappointed. Knowing that prison authorities could have access to the diary at any time, he steers away from incriminating musings and focuses instead on book reviews and fond commentary on his friends and family. It's interesting to note that Gillette does not directly assert his innocence: he complains instead that he was convicted on the basis of improper evidence. There's a subliminal message of 'They got me, but they didn't play fair' as opposed to 'They've condemned an innocent man.'"

(Elsewhere, he claimed he was being executed because he was born into a poor family, unlike the filthy-rich Harry Thaw, who got off even though plenty of people saw him fire the gun. The Gillette case became the basis for Theodore Dreiser's novel "An American Tragedy" and the movie "A Place in the Sun.")

Gillette was convicted and executed on circumstantial evidence - but there WAS a lot of it. Namely, he didn't rush to tell anyone that Brown had drowned, he buried what may have been a murder weapon - a tennis racket - and he changed his story multiple times. See here, if you like:

http://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/gillette-chester.htm

Haven't read all of it, but if YOU fell overboard in a lake (as Gillette claimed he did) with all your clothes on, what would be the instinctive move for you - to swim to shore without even kicking off your shoes first AND while carrying a tennis racket, or to hang on for dear life to the boat and try to turn it upright again? Also, according to the man who owned the boats, that type of rowboat is pretty difficult to turn upside down by accident.

Elsewhere, he claimed he was being executed because he was born into a poor family
__________________________________________

Which is odd, because his family was described as well-to-do by others. But they were missionaries for a while.

There's a subliminal message of "They got me, but they didn't play fair" as opposed to "They've condemned an innocent man." ~ lenona at April 30, 2018 5:51 PM

As a nation of laws, it is imperative that our criminal justice system plays by the rules. So, if Gillette was correct and they didn't play fair, then it's a complaint we need to take seriously. Equally so in the Cosby trial.

Maybe Isab or someone else here can explain. Is it legal, in this century, in the US, to convict anyone of murder on just circumstantial evidence? How does that work?

Yes, one may be convicted of murder in any U.S. jurisdiction on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone, O.J. Simpson not withstanding. In many criminal trials, in the absence of a confession of guilt, or of a direct eyewitness account of the crime, it's circumstantial evidence, usually gathered by the police, that may be the best evidence available.

The definition of circumstantial evidence is expanded upon here.

An excerpt from the link above:

The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.

Please let me try that link again:

Circumstantial evidence.

or copy n' paste: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/circumstantial+evidence