@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

I don't even see a plausible way that this advances liberty.

Probably because you understand it won't work.

The weapon is already built. The point of defending these restrictions based on the Title IX precedents would be to put the court in a position where they could either ratify the government shutting down of speech friendly to the left, or overturn the Title IX precedents.

I'm not sure if there's a better way to defend liberty than to put these restrictions in place and defend them, explicitly, on the Title IX precedents. It probably won't work, they'll probably find some spurious distinguisher. But what else can you do, since both conservatives and liberals will follow those precedents on other speech (for different reasons)?

Honor demands the dishonorable be dishonored. A oathbreaker's word should not be trusted, for instance. There are disadvantages to acting with honor; these can be outweighed by the advantages of being treated as if one is honorable, but only if those advantages exist. If honor requires the dishonorable be treated with honor, honor is self-defeating.

Here is a pretty good breakdown of how Title IX actually works from the congressional research service.

Your link disagrees with you and agrees that schools are required by Title IX to prevent "peer" sexual harassment.

The Supreme Court explained that in Title IX cases alleging peer harassment, a school will not be held liable unless its deliberate indifference “subjects” students to harassment. The school’s response must, “at a minimum, ‘cause students to undergo’ harassment or ‘make them liable or vulnerable’ to it.” The harassment thus must occur when the school has “substantial control” over the harasser and the context in which the misconduct occurs. For example, the standard would be satisfied if misconduct occurs on school grounds during school hours.

I don't get why a campus should want to police free speech at all.

Because, among other reasons, Title IX requires it, or so the theory goes. Allowing speech (including speech by other students) which is discriminatory as to gender sex is said to violate Title IX's guarantee:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

I have no idea if the theory has been put forth that baldly and directly tested in court, but there's a lot of lawyers, administrators, and regulators who believe it.

And of course, once you've opened the door to speech regulation, there's always more that can be added.

The reason for calling it a "chronic disease" is simply instrumental; it allows fat activists to use laws meant to provide accommodations to sufferers of disease to get accommodations for fat people also.

However, it seems obviously true that nobody is bound to a sovereign permanently and without recourse; history is replete with successful revolutions against governments.

Sure, but Hobbes would argue that these were all morally illegitimate. The Hobbesian social contract is openly one-sided (as opposed to later social contract theories which were more covertly one-sided).

I think you are overthinking it. A lot of it just feels like cars versus no cars to me. When I am in a city anything 10 min away is a walk but everything suburban is a drive.

Philadelphia's SEPTA buses are full of extremely fat people.

Unfortunately while there's plenty of data on rural vs metropolitan obesity (rural is higher), there doesn't seem to be all that much on suburban vs urban (both are metropolitan).

IMO Rightists tend to recognize the necessity/benefit of the Leviathan, so long as the state is fulfilling its half of the bargain.

That's not the Leviathan. With the Leviathan, once you (or your forebears) have made the deal to surrender your sovereignty (whether voluntarily or at swordpoint), you're bound to it forever. Hobbes's second "OF THE RIGHTS OF SOVERAIGNES BY INSTITUTION" is "Soveraigne Power Cannot Be Forfeited".

Secondly, Because the Right of bearing the Person of them all, is given to him they make Soveraigne, by Covenant onely of one to another, and not of him to any of them; there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any pretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection.

No, personal agency does not require anarchy. Personal agency is vitiated by insulating people from the consequences of their own actions, not by insulating them from the consequences of the actions of others.

I'm not a fan of the law-n-order branch, but it's not antithetical to personal agency at all. Do the crime, go to jail; it's your choice whether to do the crime.

It is possible, even probable, for both BAP and those leftists to be insane.

There is a "bomb-style gun" that's been proposed (though not developed) -- a bomb-pumped laser. If you use a gun-type nuke to pump the laser, you then have a gun-bomb-gun. Presumably you could use the laser to set off a deuterium-tritium pellet, giving you a gun-bomb-gun-bomb, but that's getting ridiculous.

On the gripping hand, I really do hate the ATF with all my heart. What do you think, could they have picked up ol' Brian at the airport rather than creating the conditions for an early morning shootout? In the event that it was absolutely necessary to serve the warrant at his home without letting him know, do you think it might have made sense to flip the bodycams on? I have zero inclination to extend even the slightest benefit of the doubt to these enemies of the American Constitution.

If you want to convince others to follow regulations that they think are stupid, enforcement that is swift, sure, and brutal is an effective way to do it. Nobody wants to end up like Randy Weaver so they're really damn careful to make sure their shotgun barrels are long enough. And nobody's going to want to end up like Malinowski so they'll be avoiding all but the most occasional private sales of firearms. That the nobodies in question are unlikely to believe the ATF story about Malinowski shooting first (I certainly don't; I suspect they executed the warrant by leading with a flash-bang, or something similar) is an advantage; it keeps them from thinking "well if I just co-operate with arrest I can fight these people in court".

Unlike you who want an one sided perspective, I am not going to defend the Russian invasion.

You're just going to ignore it and advocate for the US and the West to also ignore it.

I see a lot of rhetoric here, but nothing about the facts on the ground that no Western country invaded Russia, but Russia invaded Ukraine.

It is quite possible to have a more nuanced position than the extremely simplistic way you paint things

Often times, "nuance" is a way to attempt to use small second, third, and fourth order effects as an excuse to ignore enormous first-order effects.

It is better for the world to try to work with them, than escalate things into conflict and topple heir countries.

And this is all fine rhetoric if you believe in the Chomskyite "everything is the USs fault" point of view. But looking at how things actually happened instead, we note that it was not the US or the West that tried to topple Russia, but Russia which tried to topple Ukraine.

That's a MUCH milder claim than the kind of analysis which looks at a problem, finds a way America (or some other Western power) affected one of the parties in the past, and places the blame there.

It's a pretty common thesis, but one mostly associated with the left and Noam Chomsky in particular. It's weird seeing it coming from the right.

Israel is not the reason for Syria's instability.

This goes against western tradition of rules of war and much of the non European world watches in horror.

Ever heard of Verdun? Dresden? Hiroshima? The Battle of the Bulge? Dien Bien Phu? The western tradition of war where no enemy are killed, or no enemy civilians are killed, is a fabrication. It doesn't exist. As for non-Europeans, they're not any better. The "PR nightmare" is NGOs inventing an entirely fictional standard of warfighting and applying it only to one side.

Israel has created a perpetual refugee crisis on Europe's border

No, Israel is not responsible for the European refugee crisis. That's on disputes within the Islamic world. And European foolishness.

It's a "PR nightmare" because western NGOs make it so, which is no reason to do anything different.

They didn't use Penny's name, right? I think they're in the clear. One funny thing -- someone on Reddit complains it's a remake of S1E2, "Subterranean Homeboy Blues". Obviously it can't be (since the Penny incident hadn't happened) -- that one was a very, very fictionalized version of the Bernhard Goetz case.

It's not a good faith claim, and if you go digging into it the goalposts will move until you get tired of chasing them.

There's the city, the former sietch they take temporary refuge in (in the first movie), Sietch Tabr, that spot (temple?) where Jessica drank the water of life, but there's also the South, which is literally the southern hemisphere, inaccessible unless you have some way of getting past the storms (like, I dunno, spaceships? Even Feyd Rautha didn't think of that). I got the impression the abandoned sietch was rather close to Arrakeen, Sietch Tabr and the temple were a bit further and near each other, and the South really damn far away.

He settled, but because it was undisclosed he might have settled for Larry Page having to forgo giving him a swift kick in the butt.