crushedoranges
Russia and Ukraine are two butch lesbians fighting over a condom
No bio...
User ID: 111
The people who can"t even raise their own children are presuming to tell you how to raise yours. Who cannot see the shortcomings of their own race, but presume to tell you yours. Who live in a system that bends over backwards for them, but tell you that it is systematically evil against their favor.
They are fools, and you should not take them seriously.
I think if the person is suicidal or seriously lacking purpose, it might serve purpose as medicine. But to use it recreationally is on the same tier as underwater cave diving. You're a braver man than I for trying even the more moderate option.
I apologize in advance, but there are a lot of deranged people in EA who are totally into microdoses of LSD or other mind-hallucineugnics. I'm not one of them, in either sense of the word, for good reason. I have no doubt that what you experienced was real enough to you, and that it was a bad one. But your experience, as it reads, is no different than a schizophrenic rant from someone severely disturbed, and voluntarily inducing oneself into such an experience is perverse. It's a personal choice to mindkill oneself with ayuhuesca or what have you, but I never saw it as a brave or adventurous thing, but a kind of psychic suicide.
If every contentious jury trial had a obstinant black man on it that refused to obey instructions and just voted on their moral intuitions, the outcomes of these trials would be a lot more right wing. So as long as the trial doesn't directly involve a black defendent, you can guess that the jury will hang. Arguably the prosecution made an error of letting three nurses into the jury pool, but the defense foolishly made the assumption that a black man would be the same as the other white men on the jury.
The progressive media was gearing up for a witch hunt on the holdout, but that isn't going to go anywhere now.
Hannania is jealous Iago, that's all there is to it.
Would you tell the Cherokee that? Would your legalist argument somehow undo the Trail of Tears? I'm sure the interned Japanese were happy when Korematsu was overturned, but I think the interned Japanese would rather it not happen in the first place. But I belabor the point. You don't want to be convinced. I bring up all of these examples because it is an example of the law being bent around the interests of the state at the time. By motivated actors, within the system, who ignored the plain American constitution to do as they pleased.
And you refuse to recognize it. It's infuriating. The liberal administration before Trump ignored the plain reading of the law, but somehow you still insist that a carefully written piece of legislation will magic them into compliance. No, that's not going to happen. You would be naive to believe that men would be constrained by laws, especially if they believe they are moral in the breaking of it. Liberals go on how conservatives no longer believe in the rule of law, but don't admit to their own shamelessness in this regard. There are areas of which federal law does not apply. They are called sanctuary cities.
You think conservatives will ever believe that the liberals will act in good faith, after trying everything in their power to cheat them?
That trust is not coming back.
You're making a legalist argument for a society that has arguably abandoned it. Even the Romans, who were scrupulously so, could not stop Caesar with their laws, with all the religious sacrality they put into obeying it.
I would not call it an ideology, but a fact. The laws do not constrain the great, but the small. I'm sorry, Cato. You've lost this argument thousands of years ago. The Americans of today are hardly more moral or law-abiding than the Romans, much less the Americans of yesteryear. Some would argue a lot less.
How does John Marshal refute Andrew Jackson?
I remember a conversation we had on this, where your argument was 'you just need to write better laws'.
But that's not how politics works. That very well may be the case how legislation works, but any set of laws can be worked around, given motivation and cooperating actors in a supposedly impartial system. There is no system of rules of which is invincible to the people who operate within it. If you have a system of perfect rules which is immune to shenenigans, please share it with the class. If the solution is so apparent, why don't people just make laws with no loopholes at all?
"Dr. Kafka is here, he's given me this intake form, but all it says is 'are you sane?' for all of the questions. It goes on for hundreds of pages..."
- Prev
- Next

Just because Lysenko won the political game didn't make him right. Reality intruded and discredited him.
More options
Context Copy link