this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
608 points (99.7% liked)

World News

39364 readers
2136 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Vietnam’s High People’s Court upheld the death sentence for real estate tycoon Truong My Lan, convicted of embezzlement and bribery in a record $12 billion fraud case.

Lan can avoid execution by returning $9 billion (three-quarters of the stolen funds), potentially reducing her sentence to life imprisonment.

Her crimes caused widespread economic harm, including a bank run and $24 billion in government intervention to stabilize the financial system.

Lan has admitted guilt but prosecutors deemed her actions unprecedentedly damaging. She retains limited legal recourse through retrial procedures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theherk@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Tell me about your view on abortion. Not okay from conception or okay until 18 years of age? What a bullshit false dichotomy. It is possible to say I support something to this point. That doesn’t make you pro this or anti that. Nuance does exist.

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Did they mention abortion before the edit?

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's not called a false dichotomy; it's called taking a firm stance, and speaking the language properly and clearly.

Pro-lifers think abortion is bad at any point; pro-~~lifers~~ choicers are people who think abortion is okay to a certain point. People who are pro capital punishment only want it in certain scenarios; people who are anti capital punishment don't want it at all.

If you say you are "pro capital punishment in certain scenarios", then you support the death sentence; end of. Saying you're "anti but (...)" is like saying "I'm anti-abortion/pro-life except for the first 3 months or in special circumstances".

That doesn’t make you pro this or anti that.

Then don't claim to be anti this or that when you're not? I was quite specific in that I was talking to people who say they are "anti" when they are not.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You can say “I’m anti x except in y circumstance.” You just can. You saying this prevents you from being anti that thing is just foolish in my view. Saying I’m anti abortion or anti choice in some cases are both things that can be both said and believed. That’s the point.

And to say that one is either absolutely anti or not anti at all is a false dichotomy. It is possible to be anti anything to some extent along a gradient.

To be clear, I’m against capital punishment on the grounds that governments regularly convict innocent people. But I also don’t think the law should protect people with some amount of wealth.

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But I also don’t think the law should protect people with some amount of wealth.

Well, what's "some amount of wealth"? We all have some amount of it. At what point is it okay to take someone's life because of it? I don't think that's very different from saying "I think we should use capital punishment on murderers". One of the reasons I oppose capital punishment is also because government convict innocent people; but another is that I think people can be rehabilitated, and I believe that both for murderers and people with wealth.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I say the wealth bit with tongue in cheek, but I mean as some function of wealth distribution or gdp. There is some amount of wealth that is too much and really hurts society to be hoarded. I agree with you though and share your views on the points you made.