@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

8 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

8 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

Once you realize that most people lack intellectual standards or believe in the principles they claim each week, you can go looking for the people who actually do.

I don't recall that working out well for Diogenes.

Yep. When push comes to shove, most American Jews will prefer siding with Hamas over siding with Republicans. They'll try to win the fight for the left, but they won't defect to the right.

The protests are neither (at least not predominantly) antisemitic nor a resurgence of 20th century antisemitism.

Which is why the protesters wave the flag of Hamas and chant about how Jews should go back to Poland.

The fact that there are foolish Jews who cleave to their enemies does not change this.

The normative "peace protestor" wasn't pledging allegiance to the USSR, but they were doing the Soviet's bidding just the same. Different players, same playbook.

Some instances (almost always of non-affiliated / non-students outside of campus grounds) do not allow you to impugn a whole protest movement.

I can certainly impugn the whole protest movement, since it is a whole.

Thiel was indeed a lone wolf. A very big lone wolf, though.

Regular lefties think the vegetarians are morally superior, the actual vegetarians think the vegans are morally superior. So the scolding works, and if you don't provide vegetarian or vegan options it is you who is in the wrong, and pushing that to providing meat when there are vegans present isn't that hard. Whereas if you don't provide meat, the meat eaters are in the wrong for complaining.

There's a LOT of people who believe that vegetarianism is morally superior even if they're not vegetarian themselves, which disarms them of the first two responses.

Robinson should just be overturned in its entirety, sidestepping all this. The Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause is about the penalties which can be imposed for lawbreaking, not about the actions which can be forbidden. There's nothing about status or conduct in there. But the court is too conservative to overturn bad non-conservative precedent (except on abortion)

The courts will allow the law to be hacked like a computer if they're sympathetic to the position of the hacker.

Because the people who would have to do this are believers in the institutions, even when they go against them. You see that with gun control, where the gun grabbers do NOT respect the Supreme Court. You saw it a bit with abortion, especially toward the end of Roe v. Wade. But you won't see it here.

That is exactly what municipalities wish they could do. "Just tell us what laws we are allowed to write that allow us to clean up our streets?!"

In this case, the intended rule is "You can't clean up your streets AT ALL until you solve the homeless problem in a particular way -- that is, provide shelter to all of them at public expense".

Why do you think it’s misplaced sympathy and not, I dunno, doing their jobs?

From ScotusBlog:

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh was at least initially dubious that reversing the 9th Circuit’s decision and allowing the city to enforce its ordinances would make a difference in addressing the homelessness problem. How would your rule help, he asked Evangelis, if there are not enough beds for people experiencing homelessness? Kavanaugh returned to this point a few minutes later, asking Evangelis how sending people to jail for violating the city’s ordinances would help to address the homelessness problem if there are still no beds available when they get out. Such individuals, he observed, are “not going to be any better off than you were before.”

This is not the issue at all! The questions contain within them the implication that the laws have to make the homeless people better off. And thus the implication that somehow the Constitution protects the interests of the homeless over and above the other people who want to use the parks and public spaces that the law actually is in the interests of. This is just sympathy for the wretched, not "doing their jobs".

Or so he claimed when there was no chance of it happening.

You don't see the monkey's paw in your proposal? You now have divided the country, 1984 style, into the criminals, the proles -- the people living on these reservations -- the Outer Party (the people living in the regular part of the country), and the Inner Party (the people who decide who goes where). Life in the regular part of country becomes extremely regimented, with everyone constantly in fear of being sent to the reservation for the most minor (or imagined) of offenses if they happen to get on the wrong side of the Inner Party.

In theory, they criminalize the conduct of going somewhere while (potentially) having such a disease, which is distinct from criminalizing the disease itself.

Ah, so criminalizing sleeping while homeless should be fine. Or walking through town while a drug addict, to go to the Robinson case.

No, this is all sophistry; the 8th Amendment, having been stretched this much, can be said to cover or not cover any given case -- and it will be, based on other criteria. In this case, likely mostly misplaced sympathy for the homeless on the part of Kavanaugh and Barrett, and a corresponding lack of concern for anyone else on their part and that of the leftist justices.

It is at least 80 years too late to sneer at that in the United States alone.

The term often used is "demonstration" rather than "protest". This is because by existing, these "demonstrations" demonstrate the power of those running them, and thereby convince all involved they'd better get in line.

If they don't actually have that power, sure, they get pushed out of the way and they lose. But anyone messing with these "protestors" will certainly receive the full force of the law, while the "protestors" will be handled with kid gloves, so it is clear they do have the power.

The legislature can't run back into session every time someone comes up with a new medical procedure to make sure that you need a license to do it.

Yes they can. Because "you may do nothing without a license unless we specifically say so" is not the law.

I see what appears to be co-ordinated protests, I know protests have been co-ordinated in the past, I infer the existence of a co-ordinator. It's not rocket science.

To my knowledge most HBD theory proposes that IQ is fully general, and higher average IQ should correlate with more pro-social, civilized behaviour in general - I've seen no theory for a separate "criminality gene" being fleshed out.

No. Most HBD theories posit that 'g' is positively correlated with everything good including non-criminality, but not that it is the only factor.

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. From those who have much, much is expected (and the corollary, from those who have nothing, nothing is expected, explains Grant's Pass). Blessed are the poor. Etc. It's a slave morality.

Which gets thrown into the Christians' faces whenever said Christians complain about the actions of people more pathetic than themselves. And the Christians capitulate.

The problem I have with the measures that don't include transfers is they're often used to justify more transfers. Which is a nice broken feedback loop since by definition more transfers won't reduce that measure of poverty.

The Clinton center-left voters are gone; they follow NPR and NPR has moved along with the progressive left even further leftward.