ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
it just really isn't accurate to claim that they see gays as morally on par with the rest of humanity in the sense that we're all sinners.
I don't see how that follows. I think they would say to the kleptomaniac, "Dude, we're all sinners. We all have our tests and trials. We all sometimes experience strong desires for things we know are wrong. [Young preacher adds in a story about having been an alcoholic or whatever.] But you can choose to embrace it and make it a core part of your identity... or you can choose to fight against it and reject it. That choice is what determines who you are."
What follows from that is that if they look around in the world and see that there is a group of out and proud kleptos, screaming about the importance of being sensitive to their identity, they're going to say, "Yeah, most of those people have been informed, and they've made their choice." I don't see how that somehow obviates a Morman belief that they're Imago Dei (do the Mormans hold this? is definitely valid for most other branches of Christianity) and equally possessing inherent human value. Most Christians (again, not as familiar with Mormans, specifically) would be the first to point out that if a klepto-prodigal son made a choice and a change, they'd be overjoyed, specifically because of the person's moral worth.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
If a thief claims that kleptomania is a factual component of his identity, which of the steps of your comment apply, and which don't?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Would you stipulate that the authors are plugged in with what federal criminal prosecutors think about such indictments in general? Then, under the assumption that they're right enough about the idea that such a thing was what happened here, would you be even remotely as concerned about it?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I'm confused. Do you disagree with their assessment that prosecutors make a distinction along the lines they described? Do you agree that prosecutors make that distinction, but your assessment is that this particular one isn't in that bucket? Or maybe you think that they're right that some prosecutors make that distinction, but you think those prosecutors are just full of bollocks or something?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
This link has an example of the phrase:
The document is what prosecutors term a “speaking indictment”; that is, it describes facts about the defendants’ activities beyond what is strictly necessary for the counts it charges. The purpose of a speaking indictment is more than to simply list charges; it is to tell a story...
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Definitely curious to hear what you think of what folks like Lawfare called the "speaking indictments" of Robert Mueller. They used this term specifically to describe an indictment that is aimed at "telling a broader story" rather than narrowly focusing in on specific crimes. Are you similarly critical of legal actions taken to harm Trump?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I think this falls under the category of, "No law is ever going to be 100% successful. We don't hold any other law that you like to this standard, so we shouldn't hold this law to that standard, either." Take your example:
We aren't frisking in-person voters for contraband cameras either.
Correct. We've figured that this is a pretty significant imposition on one's person, one that can be exploited by bad actors to suppress votes (similar to poll tests). However, what you miss is that the law actually does make it illegal to take a picture of your in-person ballot. We still make it illegal! We still will prosecute people if they get caught doing it! That we don't apply 100% of the world's resources to rooting out 100% of all possible cases would be a silly standard by which to judge this law. (Thus, as you say, "Laws and judges have to take practically and other rights and priciples into account.") Hell, our extremely strict laws against murder don't eliminate 100% of murder. We don't say, "Well, unless we prohibit any individual from ever possessing any object that could be used to aid in murder and impose a panopticon surveillance state, we'll never get rid of the theoretical possibility of murder happening... Therefore, we shouldn't bother prohibiting murder at all." That would be ridiculously silly, and it's silly here, too.
We have basic rules in place that nearly perfectly work, except for the barest of theoretical edge cases. So, when you say that technology has thrown some wrenches into the machinery, I agree. It has really made non-in-person voting far more susceptible to coercion than it was before. Photoshop has not solved the problem, for our technology can just as easily take video which is not nearly as amenable to manipulation (though I highly doubt that a significant portion of folks who would be targets of coercive efforts would likely be skilled enough in even Photoshop to matter).
Furthermore, there is no evidence that allowing easy means by which to curtail secrecy actually causes even the minutest amount of voter disenfranchisement.
In the end, I think reasonable people can disagree on where the balance of interests lay. The primary thrust of my post is that folks seem to have completely forgotten the barest purpose of secrecy in voting. From your comment, I think you understand this purpose.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Yeah, I have two family members who are diagnosed celiac (my father very very nearly almost died before they correctly diagnosed it; it wasn't on the radar back then). My blood work came back negative many years ago, but apparently, it can still develop later. My wife and I realized that I was always particularly bloaty/farty for a day or so after having gluten (she seemed farty, too; has never been tested), so we just stopped. Haven't gotten new blood work. I remember when my family was dealing with the doctors, they said that even if you don't have noticeable symptoms, it can still cause damage to the intestines and increase the risk of intestinal cancer.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Folks are workin' on it. We'll get there.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Why have it? What's it for? I've told the story of the "Australian ballot" here before:
When Australia was colonized by the Brits, they used it as a penal colony. Of course, they didn't go full Lord of the Flies with the convicts, but sent good, upstanding Brits to run the place and maintain good order. After serving out their sentences, many convicts did have the option of returning to Britain, but lots of them chose to stay. They were free citizens, but obviously, their jibs were cut a bit differently than the better class of good, upstanding Brits who were sent to run the place. The convicts were even free to run for elected office, and some even did. Yet somehow, confusingly, even as time went on and there were many more freed convicts than there were good, upstanding Brits, none of these convicts ever won any elections. Maybe everyone just realized that it was better if good, upstanding Brits continued running the place.
Other folks disagreed, and they managed to implement the 'Australian ballot', where each individual's vote would be totally, completely secret. Suddenly, magically, freed convicts began winning elections and were able to curtail some of the
harshest abusescurious practices of the good, upstanding Brits.
Fundamentally, this is a story of coercion. If someone is able to learn how you're going to vote or how you voted, they can apply coercion to get you to change your vote or try to inflict punishments on you after-the-fact in retaliation for voting the "wrong way". Some people are also worried about bribes, but that's a more minor concern in my view. Critically, in order to perform coercion/bribing, they need to be able to discover who you actually vote for, so as to properly verify whether you should be punished or paid for doing the deed "poorly" or "well". Naturally, if someone is going to apply coercion to guide your vote, they're probably willing to apply coercion to get you to provide proof.
There is a reason why people who are working on digital elections really care about a property known as "receipt freeness", that is, that there is no possible way that anyone, even the voter herself, possesses any information whatsoever which could be used as a receipt to prove how a person voted. The ideal would be for the government to be able to publicize an encrypted database which cannot in any way be used to demonstrate how any person voted, but that each individual can take with them a piece of information which can be combined with this database to verify that their vote was correctly counted (yet still not reveal how they voted).
In any event, the linked opinion from Arizona.
The Secrecy Clause states, "All elections by the people shall be by ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided that secrecy in voting shall be preserved."
...
When the Arizona Constitution was adopted, the definitions of "secrecy" included "the state or quality of being hidden; concealment[.]" Secrecy, New Websterian Dictionary, 735 (1912). "Preserve" definitions included "to keep from injury; defend; uphold; save; keep in a sound state[.]" Preserve, New Websterian Dictionary, 646. Thus, the Secrecy Clause's meaning is clear: when providing for voting by ballot or any other method, the legislature must uphold voters' ability to conceal their choices. The constitution does not mandate any particular method for preserving secrecy in voting.
"voters' ability to conceal their choices". They have shifted from 'inability to reveal' to 'ability to conceal'. Why have it? What's it for?
Arizona's mail-in voting laws preserve secrecy in voting by requiring voters to ensure they fill out their ballot in secret and seal the ballot in an envelope that does not disclose the voters' choices. Section 16-548(A) provides:
The early voter shall make and sign the affidavit and shall then mark his ballot in such a manner that his vote cannot be seen.
...
Plaintiffs contend that because mail-in voters may photograph their ballot and post it on the internet, Arizona laws do not preserve secrecy in voting. Plaintiffs point to § 16-515(G), which states, "Notwithstanding § 16-1018, a person may not take photographs or videos while within the seventy-five foot limit" around polling locations. Section 16-1018 makes it a class two misdemeanor for a person to "[s]how[ ] another voter's ballot to any person after it is prepared for voting in such a manner as to reveal the contents, except to an authorized person lawfully assisting the voter," but "[a] voter who makes available an image of the voter's own ballot by posting on the internet or in some other electronic medium is deemed to have consented to retransmittal of that image and that retransmittal does not constitute a violation of this section."
We do not read § 16-1018(A)(4) as failing to preserve secrecy in mail-in voting. Section 16-1018(A)(4) merely provides a defense to the crime of showing another's ballot to any person after it is prepared. The defense applies when a person shows another voter's ballot if the voter who filled out that ballot posted the image online. And the legislature's decision not to prohibit a mail-in voter from showing her own marked ballot to another, whether in person or online, does not violate the Secrecy Clause because the legislature has commanded mail-in voters to "mark [her] ballot in such a manner that [her] vote cannot be seen."
Ah yes, the legislature has commanded that it not be seen. Except by the entire internet. Or literally anyone else that she chooses to show (or is coerced into showing) it to. I have almost no words except again, "Why have it? What's it for?" The court here seems to embrace a position that is completely ignorant of even the possibility of coercion. Or maybe it's not the purpose of secrecy that they fail to understand; maybe it's the purpose of photography. Photography is meant to allow a thing to be seen by someone at a time/place other than the original moment/location, even if the original object is long gone or destroyed. Taking a photograph of a thing and then showing it to someone else literally has the purpose of making that thing become "seen" by the someone else.
But photography is honestly a silly aside. Does anyone believe that there is a meaningful distinction between a voter showing a coercer/briber their ballot directly versus a photo of their ballot? Play this out in the absurd: A holds B at gunpoint, telling B to vote for candidate C. B marks down the ballot, and begins to reach out to show her work. "NO! Don't show it to me! That would be illegal. Instead, take out your phone; take a picture of it; show me the picture. That's totally legal and totally cool."
Haranguing about photography is clearly beside the point. The point is coercion! Preventing coercion is why we have secrecy in voting! Preventing coercion is what it's for! And one neat trick to 100% prevent it is to make it 100% impossible for anyone else to discover who you voted for - even if you want to show them. As evidenced by the entire body of literature on receipt-freeness, this is a thing that has been abundantly clear to the tech community, and those guys are usually some of the most boneheaded and slowest to understand history/politics.
Maybe one last attempt at words. This feels like watching a real life version of "catastrophic forgetting" in AI. How can people suddenly just have no clue what the whole point of this entire thing was, especially because you were just using it in all this work?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Thanks!
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Ukraine was responsible for 50% of global production of neon gas, which was a byproduct of industrial plants specifically built for it during the Soviet Union.
This is interesting, and I'm totally unfamiliar with neon production. What is the realistic medium term impact of, say, this production disappearing completely? Are there significant barriers to production being ramped up elsewhere? Is it mostly just some capital expenditure, and since the Soviets dropped das capital previously to build it, it hasn't been profitable to build much else, but if it disappeared, then within 5-10 years, new capital could be easily dropped to pretty much make up for the gap with some modest final price increase?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Would you be in favor of removing taboos on infanticide for these reasons? Many parents go through quite stressful times when raising a small child. This stress causes a not insignificant fraction of those parents to desire no longer having said child. Some fraction of those parents consider the possibility of killing/abandoning their child to remove such concerns. Some fraction of those parents actually do the deed, regardless of the current social pressure against it.
You may feel comfortable believing that you were actively wanted in some period between approximately -9mo and -3mo. After that time, say, between -3mo and +2yr, perhaps a very substantial portion of that time, you could have been very unwanted. Perhaps you were very barely marginally merely tolerated, and that only due to the extreme quantities of social pressure exerted on your parents.
Do you think the world would be a better place if we removed all that social pressure, so you could make sure that you were, like, actually actually wanted?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
its over
Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of people for which it's not yet over. The federal gov't is still litigating at least two of their mandates, a mandate is now firmly implanted in immigration law, and there may well be state mandate battles still going on to boot. I probably cannot capture the absurdity of it, either, because what they are still trying to force on people is the original vaccine. Not even updated vaccines that are tailored to the current strains. They're still fighting in courts for the ability to force people to take shots now that are essentially useless (especially since most non-vaxxed folks have almost certainly had some strain of COVID by now), under threat of firing them, taking away their contracts, or prohibiting them from entering the United States.
In the Fifth Circuit's en banc oral argument, the fact that the vaccines don't do a great job at preventing infection or transmission came up, and the gov't said that their position could still be sustained on the grounds that it reduces the risk of severe cases/death. When pressed on whether the gov't could, on the same grounds, require everyone to get below a certain BMI, as obesity brings severe risks which are endemic in our society, they basically just said, "Yeah, we wouldn't do that tho."
If anything, atleast now I know who (almost everyone) is totally okay with me being a second class citizen on the premise of refusing certain medication. Some masks are off permanently. Them denying this in the future wont change my opinion of them.
This is why it's still so important. If there is not enough anti-authoritarian energy to form a hard consensus that the gov't should not even have the option to do such things, those people will go beyond the mask of "we won't force you to take certain medication". There will be more masks to come.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
You can see in a few of these examples how people can have a lot of knowledge in a particular subject, but not actually be all that smart. For coding, I've hung out on tech forums where people have plenty of technical coding knowledge, but are so wrapped up in their particular worldview that they spurt total nonsense on the adjacent topic of encryption policy. For philosophy, check out the badphilosophy subreddit. Some great technical knowledge hanging out there; "smart"? Ehhhhhh...... And even AskHistorians is pretty subject to the "woke mind virus".
This is all to say, those communities are great if you engage them looking for specific things very squarely within their technical specialties.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
the first side to start large-scale violence quite possibly loses.
What is the threshold you have in mind, and why is the Summer of 2020 below that threshold?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
This is pretty amazing, considering that the data has become so overwhelming that it has necessitated a change in narrative that has even shown through in legal arguments. When the gov't argued for their employee mandate in front of the en banc fifth circuit a few months ago, it was no longer, "This is necessary to prevent transmission in the workplace," because it's now undeniable that vaccination prevents neither infection nor transmission. It was a stark contrast to the arguments over the OSHA vaccine in SCOTUS. Then, the justices were entertaining ideas like, "It's similar to if you have a dangerous machine that is spurting dangerous chemicals all over the place that could end up on other employees." Now, there no talk of that at all. Instead, the gov't had to basically leave the point stand and retreat back to, "...but we still think vaccination is the best way to prevent serious cases/death to individuals."
Of course, now that that's the new battleground, the court had some wicked hypos like, "Could the gov't mandate that all employees get below a particular BMI by a specified date or be fired? Obesity is a huge crisis in society, causing all sorts of disease/death, and surely that causes inefficiency in gov't operations [which is the "federal nexus" they're trying to use]?" We can only hope that these facts take root in the public consciousness as well (and that the fifth circuit nixes another authoritarian mandate).
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
The part that is scandalous is the part where the executive branch of the government deliberately defied a restriction on what it can spend money on passed by Congress, in violation of Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
Did you say that Obama's actions with PPACA subsidies were as scandalous as Iran-Contra? Were you upset that the mainstream media barely covered it, nor were concerned in the slightest? (Even now, when I went searching for a link, there was basically nothing from any of the standard center-left outlets, probably because I used the search term "unconstitutional", and they almost certainly didn't want that mood affiliation anywhere near Their President.)
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
you just don't care about the money laundering problem that 95% of the rest of the population cares about a lot.
Proof?
The obscene quantities of hard and soft geopolitical power spent to build international coalitions to rein in the problem. Whether or not you're a small d democrat, this effort has been led by small d democratic nations, because the vast majority of those populations oppose corruption, criminal activities, and money laundering. So I guess you have two options: 1) Convince enough folks to just knock it off with the whole anti-ML thing, or 2) Build the power of your authoritarian country enough that you can flaunt the international anti-ML order. No wiz-bang required.
the hypothetical carrying capacity ... (including any expansions that might inevitably be made to it in a world without [alternative]) in that case is the real determinant
We've pretty much known the carrying capacity of gift cards, prepaid cards, etc., because these things have been used in money laundering efforts for decades. That large international coalition I mentioned went to a lot of work to massively restrict the carrying capacity of these methods. Let's put a number estimate on it again. Suppose all of crypto died tomorrow. By what factor do you think these other methods would increase in scope? 2X? 10X?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
If HSBC could feasibly create mixer accounts, then I'd support that too.
I think we've hit the crux; you just don't care about the money laundering problem that 95% of the rest of the population cares about a lot. I don't think there's anything more to say here other than, "Just try to convince enough voters to repeal anti-ML laws and see if you're smarter than all of history."
Most ransomware targets individuals in bulk and plenty of it has requested non-crypto forms of payment like gift cards, prepaid cards, Ukash, MoneyPak, YooMoney, etc. So "folks like Nick Weaver" are factually wrong.
If it's an empirical question, please provide some empirical data. Or at least a made-up estimate. What percentage of ransomware payment flows do you think is crypto vs. non-crypto?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
The culture war about euthanasia in Canada has been roaring a bit, almost a decade after they began implementing the program. However, I'm not particularly interested in the current Canadian culture war on this topic; instead, I'm curious about a related topic in the US culture war.
I saw this chart being bandied about, describing the procedure. I hadn't really thought about how the procedure actually works. It seems that you can either choose a route like this, where a series of chemicals are injected by a doctor, or a route where you self-administer some oral drugs. My first thought for this route was, "That sounds a lot like what they use in the US for capital punishment." My Duck-Duck-fu quickly hit my lack of knowledge of pharmacology as I was trying to figure out if they were actually the same drugs or not. It seems like they're at least quite similar. From here, they list midazolam, propofol, and rocuronium as being used in MAID. Some examples from my searching includes things from Wikipedia like, for midazolam:
The drug has been introduced for use in executions by lethal injection in certain jurisdictions in the United States in combination with other drugs. It was introduced to replace pentobarbital after the latter's manufacturer disallowed that drug's use for executions.
For propofol:
The US state of Missouri added propofol to its execution protocol in April 2012. However, Governor Jay Nixon halted the first execution by the administration of a lethal dose of propofol in October 2013 following threats from the European Union to limit the drug's export if it were used for that purpose. The United Kingdom had already banned the export of medicines or veterinary medicines containing propofol to the United States.
For rocuronium, I can't even figure out if it's the same thing as rocuronium bromide or if they're different, but while Wikipedia doesn't have an article for the former, it has for the latter:
On July 27, 2012, the U.S. state of Virginia replaced pancuronium bromide, one of the three drugs used in execution by lethal injection, with rocuronium bromide.
On 3 October 2016, the U.S. state of Ohio announced that it would resume executions on January 12, 2017, using a combination of midazolam, rocuronium bromide, and potassium chloride. Prior to this, the last execution in Ohio was in January 2014.
On August 24, 2017, the U.S. state of Florida executed Mark James Asay using a combination of etomidate, rocuronium bromide, and potassium acetate.
I followed the litigation in the US some years back around the death penalty, and I was aware that there was a concerted effort to pressure drug manufacturers to stop selling whatever drugs were used to states who would use them for executions. I also remember many of the arguments being that such injections constituted cruel and unusual treatment, particularly focusing on the X% or whatever risk that something went wrong or something didn't work quite right for this person or that person. (As an aside, literally none of the Canadian websites I've seen on MAID say a single word about any risk of things not going swimmingly.)
My question is if anyone is familiar with more recent developments in the US. Have there been any reasonably big cases that are more recent (than probably 5-10yrs ago)? In any of those cases, was a US state able to successfully point to Canada's program in order to argue that the risk was low and that it should not constitute cruel/unusual punishment? Are there actual meaningful differences in the drugs used that have been argued in court? (Are those differences due to the pressure on drug manufacturers?) Have the anti-death penalty advocates just given up on that argument and focused their efforts more on pressuring the manufacturers? Basically, if we were to draw a "territory control map" for the US litigation/culture war, what does the current state look like?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Yes, I think people should be allowed to transact in fiat cash as much as they want
So, the theme of my OP is that practical limits are important. Actual, physical cash presents a similar practical limit. If you're transacting in flat cash for 99.9% of the regular, legal transactions that most people do, there is zero practical difficulty. But, if you're trying to move $100M of ill-gotten gains internationally, it's hard to do it with physical cash.
As an example, folks like Nick Weaver argue that the only reason ransomware was ever a thing was because of crypto; if it didn't provide a relatively easy way to send huge quantities of money overseas to criminal gangs, there basically wouldn't have ever been any point. I mean, play this scenario out. Some digital thugs in Russia attack your business' network, demand $50M for the decryption key. You start negotiating how to pay it. Literally all of the methods that involve regular digital cash are non-viable ("Yeah, we'd love to do that, but that's 100% going to get rejected by the banks who are trying to comply with anti-ML and other criminal laws. Sorry. Any other options?"). If you're going down the route of, "Whelp, just gather up $50M in physical cash and physically transport it over to a mutually-agreed-upon non-extradition-treaty country..." that's going to be a practical no-go for most companies. If the the Russian digital thugs literally could not figure out how to practically receive such payments from Regular American Corp., there'd be no real money in ransomware, and it would dry up to be just the background nuisance that computer viruses used to be.
What's wrong with making digital cash, as it has always proclaimed to be, more cashy?
What's the difference between this and a "Mixer Account" at HSBC or in the Bahamas or whatever? Regular bank accounts are already "digital money". This is probably the biggest thing that causes misunderstanding; yes, we've had "digital money" for decades - it's called a "bank account" most of the time. It's money that is kept in the form of ones and zeros in a spreadsheet with a trusted intermediary, rather than crypto, which is money that is kept in the form of ones and zeros in a ..."not spreadsheet" (which is basically a spreadsheet; unless it was with FTX, in which case, it wasn't even in a spreadsheet) with a different form of trusted intermediaries (some would point to how there are actually only a few really big players in crypto mining, others would generalize trust like Vitalik). What's wrong with making the digital money that we already have "more cashy"?
Well, the obvious thing that's wrong with it is the massive money laundering problem! That's why we've spent significant quantities of hard and soft geopolitical power on setting up wide international collaborations to counter regular digital money laundering efforts.
People still have regular digital money, and they still use it for the 99.9% of regular, ordinary, legitimate transactions. And they still use cash, too. I'm not arguing for or against a "cashless society". I think cash is pretty fine; I use it. I think cash will live and die on its own merits, particularly whether it has benefits in terms of things like ease of use, low transactions costs, and such that continue to outstrip the alternatives. I think that letting cash continue to thrive but continuing to enforce money laundering laws for digital cash (whether regular digital cash or wiz-bang digital cash) provides a nice practical balance of interests.
Eh, they couldn't possibly help it if someone bad used this product that is obviously designed to facilitate money laundering
Again, you have zero proof of this. Based on my knowledge of the community it's far more likely that the author is just a dedicated cryptography fan and privacy freak as opposed to having any interest in money laundering. These people are nerds. They don't do anything that they'd need to launder the proceeds of.
I almost didn't respond to this, because I didn't see how it was relevant. I think you're implying that I've somehow claimed that the people who made tornado cash did so because they wanted to launder money for themselves? Is that right? Because if so, I haven't actually claimed that. Whether they're nerds who are just trying to fill a (black) market need or businessmen at HSBC, what's the difference? Because one group thinks that it's "neat"? They think it's "wiz-bang"? Like, who cares? Either way, I'm just looking at the outcome. Are they creating a system that is basically designed so that it's primary use is going to be massive money laundering? Yeah, that's gonna be a problem.
Hey, look, if you could devise a scheme that was like Tornado Cash... but wasn't primarily useful for massive money laundering, I think most people wouldn't care all that much. Like, for example, if your technological product made it pretty easy for people transact like, a few thousand bucks anonymously or whatever, but somehow presented real, practical difficulties to just smashing it like an "easy button" to launder hundreds of millions or billions, people probably wouldn't care. This might be technologically easy/difficult to do; I don't think I care (I mean, I do kinda care, because I'm also a nerd, and it would be "neat" and "wiz-bang" to think about how to do this); I mostly just care about what the actual, practical effects of your product are in the real world.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Oh honey, techdirt was embarrassing itself by constantly lying about tech/intelligence/surveillance law long before 2016.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
We have very little clue. About on par with how little we know about most things that are somewhere on the hazy nature/nurture spectrum. As a bellwether, consider the APA's brief in Obergefell. This was an opportunity for them to lay out the best science to ground their theory of the cause of homosexuality and properly argue that it's innate or whatever it is that they wanted to be able to say for political purposes.
You know what evidence they brought? An opinion poll and a report from their "LGBT Concerns Office" which said that basically all the research into conversion therapy was methodologically unsound. Seriously. We know pretty much garbage.
Nah, we are just far enough out from any election, especially one that might involve a man of orange color.
More options
Context Copy link