@NewCharlesInCharge's banner p

NewCharlesInCharge


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:09:11 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 89

NewCharlesInCharge


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 19:09:11 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 89

Verified Email

I can see some logic in the position of lightly punishing women and harshly punishing doctors.

Women who seek abortions have grown up among propaganda that tells them abortions are never wrong, killing a 38 week fetus is not the same as killing a baby, etc.

If there were a successful propaganda effort to convince women that euthanizing infants was really no big deal, I could imagine a similar punishment regime. The doctor has a responsibility to know the law and knows damn well what they’re doing. The woman may have the moral culpability of a brainwashed cultist.

As others have pointed out, there's some sleight of hand in what people mean when the say "homeless" and what the causal factors in those populations are.

When people talk about San Francisco having homelessness problems, they aren't talking about people that merely lack a fixed address. They're talking about the people living in and defecating on the streets, frequently deranged. People that have defected entirely on societal norms.

Cities like Los Angeles, Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle have much higher amounts of these total defectors than other cities. The relevant difference between these and other cities is that total defectors are more or less tolerated in those cities. You can build permanent structures on public land and nothing bad will happen. At worst, something bad like a murder happens at the camp and then you'll be kicked out and lose the materials you likely stole to construct your building. You can do drugs openly. At the moment Seattle Police aren't even legally capable of arresting people for drug possession and public drug use.

I don't know if this environment creates total defectors or merely attracts them, it's probably some combination.

In the interview Sund makes the case, along with documents he's posted on Twitter, that intelligence agencies were aware of the threat but had not shared that intelligence with the Capitol Police.

Intelligence agencies aren't known to be acting in the interest of Trump.

Do the authors not remember the Birthers? If this was our standard, then there would certainly be county-level officials that would declare they haven't seen Obama's long form birth certificate and strike him from the ballots accordingly.

Similarly county-level officials could say Biden's "antifa is an idea" is providing aid to enemies of the United States and strike him as well.

I've always wondered if these parents are familiar with black-names-on-resumes-get-fewer-callbacks popular science. And if they are, do they just not care? Or are they being spiteful? Or are they trying to pull a Boy Named Sue to give their kids more adversity to overcome?

There’s definitely geographic differences that might lead some to be in a bubble where they don’t realize what’s normal, but antifa mugshots are at least a standard deviation more unattractive than anywhere I’ve been in America.

Hollywood in 2002 was extremely careful about being Islam critical.

Even prior to 9/11 they changed the villains in The Sum of all Fears to be Neo Nazis instead of Islamists.

If your plan is to allow for no survivors, it makes no sense to create more evidence of your false flag operation.

I think it’s likely that the attack was planned by an underling and scuttled by a superior who had no prior knowledge, and that explains why survivors were allowed to live.

It does now, the false flag would be Israel trying to make the US believe that an adversary of Israel sank the boat.

It took quite awhile for false flags we happen to know about to come to light.

The attack on the USS Liberty, by all appearances, was a false flag, but saying so is the domain of conspiracy theorists.

His texts read like someone who could be a guest on Jerry Springer.

I question if he actually earned his degree or if that was a favor to his father.

I'm curious what the jury instructions were. Here's the bit of criminal code that covers riots: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch64/

And here's the statutory definition of riot: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch64/sect18-6401/

RIOT, ROUT, UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, PRIZE FIGHTING, DISTURBING PEACE 18-6401. RIOT DEFINED. Any action, use of force or violence, or threat thereof, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use such force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two (2) or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, which results in: (a) physical injury to any person; or (b) damage or destruction to public or private property; or (c) a disturbance of the public peace; is a riot.

This quote in the OP's article makes it sound like they were being accused of conspiring to disturb the peace, not to injure someone or damage property:

Ryan Hunter, deputy city attorney, told the court Thursday the masked men, carrying shields and flag poles, planned to storm out of the U-Haul outside the park, potentially deploying smoke and using a bullhorn. They intended to engage in a “tumultuous manner” with Pride attendees trying to enjoy the park, he said.

Here's the statutory definition for disturbing the peace: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH64/SECT18-6409/

18-6409. DISTURBING THE PEACE. (1) Every person who maliciously and willfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, family or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting, or fires any gun or pistol, or uses any vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence or hearing of children, in a loud and boisterous manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like the kind of overbroad definition ruled against in Cox v Louisiana: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/536

The statute at issue in this case, as authoritatively interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court, is unconstitutionally vague in its overly broad scope. The statutory crime consists of two elements: (1) congregating with others "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned," and (2) a refusal to move on after having been ordered to do so by a law enforcement officer. While the second part of this offense is narrow and specific, the first element is not. The Louisiana Supreme Court in this case defined the term "breach of the peace" as "to agitate, to arouse from a state of repose, to molest, to interrupt, to hinder, to disquiet." 244 La., at 1105, 156 So.2d, at 455. In Edwards, defendants had been convicted of a common-law crime similarly defined by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Both definitions would allow persons to be punished merely for peacefully expressing unpopular views. Yet, a "function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech * * * is * * * protected against censorship or punishment * *. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view.

This reminds of the “not gays” as coined by Red Letter Media. Studios inserting a female love interest that doesn’t add to the story just so that there’s no question that the two male leads aren’t secret lovers.

I believe that miracles continue to happen and that the Catholic Church documents the ones with substantial evidence. It’s also on guard against hoaxes and mistakes and rarely declares an event to be a miracle.

I know it sounds hokey to a non-Catholic, but look into the Eucharistic miracles. Especially those examined by pathologists .

Catholic doctrine isn’t so definitive as you’re likely familiar with from Protestants. While Jesus is the only savior, who is to be saved is not fully defined.

Here’s CCC 847:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Did your parish not administer baptism properly?

http://www.ibreviary.com/m2/preghiere.php?tipo=Rito&id=103

The celebrant speaks to the parents in these or similar words:

You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training him (her) in the practice of the faith. It will be your duty to bring him (her) up to keep God’s commandments as Christ taught us, by loving God and our neighbor. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?

Parents: We do.

If that's coercion, then having any requirement for romantic partners is coercion.

"She said must love dogs in her profile, and I had no other choice but to feign a love of dogs, though I am actually a cat person."

Christians have always been murdered. That doesn't in itself delegitimize the state for Christians. If Christian murders were selectively under-prosecuted, perhaps it would.

Forbidding people from worship is altogether different. It proves that the free exercise clause has no weight. No one will be held accountable for violating it, and the state is free to violate it again. Already there's movement to do away with priest-penitent privilege, invading upon another critical sacrament for Catholics.

Given the available evidence of non-believers that have converted, what makes you so confident you'll never change? I don't think you've really engaged with the faith, the objections you raise are shallow. Maybe you engaged with a hollow version of the faith.

I, too, used to be an edgy Internet atheist. I'm now on the path to Catholic baptism.

As far as I can tell the environmental movement wants us to repent for our sins of overindulgence by dramatically scaling back our consumption. Whether or not a proposed regulation actually helps the environment is of little relevance. For an example, see plastic bag bans.

It doesn't matter that the "reusable" bags mandated for sale are far more carbon intensive and contain far more plastics than the flimsy plastic bags they've been mandated to replace. It doesn't matter if you know that none of the trash in your region is transported by barge. The true aim of the ban is to curb the sin of consuming disposable plastics. If an environmentalist were looking at a spreadsheet of plastic bag consumption before and after a ban, and they saw a 5% drop, they'd count it as a win, regardless of the fact that post-ban bags are about 30 grams and pre-ban are 5 grams. On a materials basis you'd break even when you reduced consumption to 16% of what it once was.

Google for plastic bag ban effectiveness and all you'll see supporters pointing to are bag counts: www.google.com/search?q=plastic+bag+ban+effectiveness

None are claiming a drop in consumption large enough to offset the extra materials.

They seem completely uninterested in fixes that enable current levels of consumption to continue while mitigating or eliminating environmental impacts.

Not so much "have to" but strongly suggested to, and we also have this Section 230 sword of Damocles hanging over your head that will drop if you're not cooperative enough.

I would say the deep state is institutional inertia. It also just so happens that formal and informal barriers to changing direction disfavor one party.

Maybe my memory is faulty, but I thought Trump even encountered legal challenges to him firing employees that weren't effectively implementing his orders. Google and ChatGPT are both failing me, though.

At Facebook I once wrote a diagnostic for a piece of hardware that was causing trouble for my team. The folks who qualify hardware wanted to integrate it into their qualification process to guard against hardware with this particular fault from getting deployed again. It was a Python script with well defined args discoverable via --help.

This is was my first and only interaction with a contractor. The guy was Indian, and it was mind-blowing. After three meetings of explaining that he just needs to run the script and collect output via whatever mechanism qualification already uses, I gave up. I couldn't have simplified the task anymore without just doing it for him.

At one point he just copied and pasted my script, with no modifications and nothing to invoke it, and put me on as a reviewer.

The list of targeted ideas:

Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power.

I think the government may have preserved its viewpoint neutrality if it had also gone after those that were overstating the risks of COVID-19, or those speculating that the 2020 election was going to be rigged in Trump's favor. Maybe it did and that'll come out later.

Inside of Facebook we had a group for free speech advocates. Zuck, defending the company's censorship, had no idea about the origins of "fire in a crowded theater" and so used it as part of his defense. It took employees to point out that that example comes from a controversial and overruled SCOTUS decision.