@PutAHelmetOn's banner p

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

				

User ID: 890

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 890

The law is intentionally set up to allow for Terrorism Lite to work, especially when it is being committed for certain ends. The law is not meant (by those who write it) to equally protect the abortion protestor and the pro-choice activist.

My understanding is what was rejected was an Emergency Warrant. I have no idea how often Emergency Warrants are used. Maybe an Emergency Warrant would have been approved if but for Lemon's politics/status? How would we know?

not sure what a stationary patrol is

of course this means keeping watch while standing still (not moving). I agree, it is uncommon usage.

As to the question in your OP: if the Lt. Governor is committing crimes then indeed there could be a criminal conspiracy. Some people in discussions have thrown out the word insurrection. I am wondering if there is a principled difference: for example, is insurrection a kind of formal and legal term that describes the state of minnesota itself and not any of its individual leaders. I suppose in a trivial way being a sanctuary city or state might be insurrection. I'm not sure this signal chat stuff really adds any more to that.

Good Genes is indeed incoherent. Genes can only be fit or not. And fitness is relative to the environment. Therefore, to say Good Genes exist is to say Good Environments exist.

Another way to phrase this is that there is an inverse of eugenics. We could posit a kind of "eu-envirics" focused on changing the environment.

(Insofar as the laws of physics have certain requirements, genetic defects that cause e.g. stillborn births are in all practical sense Bad Genes)

To what extent do you (or legal or ethical theory) conflate or distinguish between force, and violence? Restraining someone is certainly forceful, but is it necessarily violent? If you had cheap, harmless sleep rays to aim at patients, would this be considered 'violence?' Such a technology "feels" unethical, even though it seems like it offers safety improvements.

The officer should face zero consequences. This is just politics. I am not insane. Thank you for your opinion.

I hated the prose too. Like another commenter said though, it is intentional. If I recall, one jarring word choice was something like the word 'vessel' to refer to a person's physical body -- over and over and over again. My guess is this is meant to characterize the narrator. so, I don't knock off points for it, just to say: I won't be reading it again.

Of course it isn't better than what we have now to people who prefer democrats. Why else would Gillitrut post what he did?

You seem to be implying that using these phrases is a kind of acting of the type: "teenager-y" which you juxtapose against "terroristy." It's you, you are the one being dishonest in exactly the way previously mentioned.

These phrases allow for a disconnect between the words and actions. What Good is saying is irrelevant to how she was acting. How she was acting is she struck someone with a car. The steelman for calling that a domestic terrorist is people use cars all the time for domestic terrorism.

what is "deranged" about it specifically? Is conflict theorist deranged by default? It seems to me be a straightforward application of consequences:

  • Tribally back the officer => Narrative is less likely to create popular pressure to see conviction etc.
  • Anything else => agent gets Derek Chauvin'd.

Ironically, I will say, like argument for Ross's self-defense, the mere fact that a reasonable administration thinks this could work might as well be enough for us to NOT call this "deranged."

Ah, so close, you could have said, "I know it seems confusing, but driving into someone is using deadly force..." and then your post would have been perfect. I do wonder if you would have gotten modd'ed for that comment; I won't speculate on that.

Probably most dads think this. I don't know Murphy well enough to say what is going on here: is he just too autistic to realize he is supposed to lie; or if he just likes trolling. Based on a cursory read of his other takes, it seems he is basically just trolling.