The law is meant to be fair (which is a separate can of worms, but the goal is fairness). It is not meant to be moral, though it often follows what people generally consider to be moral, like don’t rape or murder people.
And, honestly, using the “reasonable person” argument here goes against your point - it indicates that people with different morals exist, and therefore morality must be subjective.
Honestly this is a pretty big topic in philosophy. It could be argued that morality is a human construct and therefore must be subjective.
Some people believe that not going to church each week is amoral, but some atheists think organized religion is amoral - who is right?
You and I can agree that murder is immoral. Would that stance change if we were on the jury for a murder trial and, if found guilty, the offender would be sentenced to death? If that doesn’t make us murderers, what makes the death penalty an appropriate and moral punishment?
Simply replying “false” indicates little to no thought on the subject or its nuance, and gives off strong “I’m 13 and this is deep” vibes
I think it’s a reference to a lyric in one of his songs where he pronounces “me” as “may”. The line sounds like “it’s gonna be may”
I’m not sure what song it is, I’m just really happy someone pointed out the answer 😆
Do qanon next!
I freaking love my xc90
Somewhere there’s a meme about how The Matrix referred to the year 1999 as the height of civilization and I can’t stop thinking about that
Edit: here it is 
I’m talking about reporting on tips for events that might happen, not those that have happened. I laid out the reasons in a different comment, but the important distinction is not reporting on tips for possible future events
It is absolutely a weird argument
Journalists report on what has happened and what is currently happening. They don’t know if their info on what is going to happen is accurate. If they report the information and nothing happens, they lose credibility. If they report the information and people die as a result (or at least more than would have died without reporting), they would be charged with leaking Intel and likely held responsible, at least partially, for those deaths.
It is a no-win scenario to report on things like this before it happens. And that’s really uncomfortable - real human lives could be saved, and there is a mechanism for disseminating information to get the word out and make a difference. But it’s also impossible to know the accuracy of the information, it’s impossible to know if it’s deliberately misleading, it’s impossible to know the true goals of releasing such information to a news organization before the events unfold - for all we know, this was a test by the administration, and if they failed the entire company could be shuttered.
It’s easy to get frustrated with news outlets based on what they do and don’t report, but there is usually logic behind their reasoning.
News outlets and journalists also have a duty to not endanger people. By releasing details of capturing Maduro before the operation, it could have put US service members in danger. Not only that, but it’s possible they didn’t trust the source.
It’s exactly the same reasoning the original signal chat leak wasn’t reported until after the strikes discussed in the chat had happened.
In New Jersey, it’s called the FUCK ICE bill 🤗
I’ve been using boost and love it
I’ve made so many poor decisions
In the app I’m using (boost), I can either post a link or upload a picture, not both.
Dragon, obviously
They burned down Boost for Reddit, and Boost for Lemmy rose from the ashes
Cool, sounds legit