Absolutely not. First, you depose them. Under oath. And then you investigate. If you investigate first without deposing them, you have to have evidence so bulletproof they can’t come up with some story justifying it or explaining it away. If you depose them first, they already had to choose a story to go with and you just prove they lied. The more you depose them, the easier that is.
This is how pretty much all civil lawsuits go as well.
If you ever find yourself uttering this sentence you really wanna rethink your stance
I am making fun of your hill ;D Seems it is super effective :D
He supported it. And there probably isn’t just one originator for most stances. Multiple people can form the same ideas.
Laws that recognize life of one group of people as more valuable than other are the exact same logic that was used to defend slavery. Murder is murder. Recognizing one groups life as more valuable then others is wrong, no matter how much you want to dress that pig to look progressive.
I am with Hitler on treating animals better. So what? If you care where a stance comes from rather than what it stands for, you are an ignoramus.
Ok, so I misunderstood and you actually agree we should have an open (mixed gender) division? Just adding we also need to work on preventing harassment and discrimination?
Otherwise, you are adding the logic stating that because harassment exists, we shouldn’t have mixed gender tournaments. Which implies we also need separate transgender tournaments, since they are also at risk for harassment in the existing ones.
So instead of addressing the misogyny, let’s sweep it under the rug by not allowing women to compete in the top tournaments? By your logic, shouldn’t we just make a third transgender category to solve the transphobia?
Who said it would be entirely men? Chess had this format forever and any woman that had the ability to compete in the top level open tournaments was competing in them.
Doesn’t it? I am pretty sure they have authority over everyone. US and other non signatories just do not have to hand them over. But if they ever visit a signatory state, they should be arrested.
What do you mean it’s false? Evidence that does not hold up in court of law is still evidence. There is nothing false about that sentence.
If I take a photo of my car for insurance after a car crash, it is evidence. Even if it is not perfectly provable that it is my car or that it is from that day and not previous accident, it is still evidence. Evidence does not have to be perfect or prove the case on it’s own to be considered evidence.
Court would consider admissable as “evidence”,
What does that have to do with how a newspaper should write a headline? Since there is no evidence for the wife’s claim (and at least some small evidence against), the news correctly reports it as just her claim.
The unbiased take on this is that two sides are making claims which are not backed by anything that qualifies as evidence
Didn’t I just write that in less detail? I guess I should have added “weak” evidence? I thought the word “some” already made it clear it was far from enough evidence.
Well, as some pointed out, U.S. provided a picture of the boat, which was not a fishing boat, but an expensive speedboat. So there is some evidence against the wife’s claim. On the other hand, a speedboat shouldn’t have enough fuel to reach the U.S. So both stories seem suspicious.
I want a lot of things that I can’t have. They can want it, but the system doesn’t have to allow it or can discourage it.
I don’t know in what context this parable is used in the book, but this does not explain the need for growth in reality. It does not even show why you would need growth in the parable. No matter how many chickens or how much wheat the village produces, there still wouldn’t be more tokens.
Well, partially maybe. In the past, investors were happy with dividends instead of growth. There are extra factors making growth be preferable over dividends nowdays.
I think your are confusing company growth and prices growing, mixing them together.
no. You can pay interest out of your profits without growing. And many businesses don’t have significant loans.
There are many answers to this.
First, this is not a general capitalism thing. It is more the specific flavor we have. Second, it is not an absolute rule, there are companies that don’t focus on growth, but it is rare amongst massive companies.
The original idea of capital investment is that when you need investment for your company (e.g. to buy better machines, expand production, etc.) you let people invest (by buying shares) and then give them a portion of the profits gained from that investment (in the form of dividends).
However, most companies have figured out that if they don’t pay dividends but re-invest the money, shareholders are still happy because their shares get more valuable as the company grows and they get to grow the company, which is good for CEO paychecks and lot of other things.
There are things like economies of scale (if you produce million units of something per year, it is almost always cheaper per unit than if you produce ten per year). So if you don’t grow, your competitor that does grow could sell cheaper than you and put you out of business.
And a lot more.
How many times was this method used on them? The method is solid. The people in power refusing to genuinely prosecute the Epstein class is a different problem.