Search results for query: *

Why should people be shamed for exercising their democratic rights and participating in the public sphere?

Which is why we need to come down on them, hard and fast. But entirely within the law, no cruel or unusual punishments. Just use the legal tools we have available, and deploy them without mercy or without hesitation.

Which is why I have been trying to convince him to go for less drastic forms of punishment. Personally, I am on your side, lock them up and all. If they get anyone hurt, lock them up for longer, anyone killed, throw away the key. And I do agree it is the same logic, and I'd rather keep rule of...

Though this would also include the concept of weregild, though. It doesn't have to be the same for the same, just restoration or punishment in proportion.

Then if you think so, maybe something less drastic is in order? A public switching perhaps? Just spitballing ideas, since it seems a bit too far.

But with smaller groups we run into the same problem then, because they cannot "tank" the attacks so to speak.

Indeed, unless people want such things to be public, they ought to be private. They are the business of the giver and recipient.

I was actually thinking about that too, the latter of which is why when I spoke of organization size I was talking about listing them.

There is value, and yes it is messed up. So the question is what sort of cap should be set, and for whom. I think organizations should definitely be listed, but even then I'd say small organizations probably should be exempt for the same reason I'd say small donors should. And I'd say anyone...