@hanikrummihundursvin's banner p

hanikrummihundursvin


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 18:32:52 UTC

				

User ID: 673

hanikrummihundursvin


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 18:32:52 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 673

The war on drugs is a failure because its being waged on a scale that's way too large using means that are completely ineffective. And that's only if we are assuming that the 'War on Drugs' existed as advertised.

A very simple contradictory example to the frame you're proposing is to look at 'legal' drug manufacturing processes and recognize how easily they can manufacture 'demand'. Case in point being the opioid epidemic. With that understood we can also recognize how easily the US government could end that entire manufacture and distribution process via nothing more than legislation and a few dozen FBI raids.

Opioid based pain killers don't need to exist on the scale they do. The demand wasn't for them specifically just like the demand for any drug isn't drug specific. People wanted pain relief and escapism. People wanted a good time. You can give most people all of that without completely destroying their lives. The path of least resistance towards peoples wants and needs isn't always the best. And I think it would behoove everyone to recognize that and aim to increase the resistance on some paths to prohibit as many people as possible from taking them. That goes for cheap drugs as well as cheap labour.

I think this correctly sidesteps the entire 'issue'. The only victims are the kids stuck with ever more elaborate schemes of learning designed for the innately illiterate or those with no mind for reading in the first place.

Recognizing the issue of innate differences, and assuming we do not consider school to be a rat race for our children, wouldn't the best teaching method be something that makes the kids happier at the same time as they are taught how to read? I wish that we could change our objectives away from ever more elaborate schemes designed for the innately illiterate or those with no mind for reading in the first place, towards something more aligned with making school a more 'harmonious' experience, for a lack of a better term.

Why does it matter whether the ongoing partition of Canada between India and China is governed by a 'left wing' or a 'right wing'?

I don't think you are sufficiently answering the question. Your answer would apply just as equally now as it would for past decades. Yet it is now that we are seeing this change. So what gives? Why the change now and not earlier?

And you didn't answer the immediate question and you do not answer the context relevant question in this post either. The answers you propose are not time specific so there is no reason to assume that they are more relevant now than any other time.

How would bad scholarship be relevant to him being a dangerous spokesperson for Holocaust denial?

I don't understand. You said that his suit was shot down because she was able to provide proof of garbage scholarship. Is your assumption then that if Irving had ironclad proof that the Holocaust did not happen he would be considered less of a 'dangerous' holocaust denier?

You're not answering the point relevant to what you yourself wrote. You said that his suit was shot down because she was able to provide proof of garbage scholarship. Is your assumption then that if Irving had ironclad proof that the Holocaust did not happen he would be considered less of a 'dangerous' holocaust denier?

I fail to see what light the court judgment would shed on your own statements.

But you said that the reason the suit was shut down was because of his garbage scholarship. You could certainly forgive me for not interpreting it any other way than as it is written, can you? And if that was not relevant why write it? If it was relevant then why ask me why I am bothering with it?

In short: Ingroup>outgroup?

The problem here is the 'direction' of the society you are talking about when justifying things that happen within it. To illustrate: There are thousands of things that happen every day that, in the past or under difference circumstances, would have instigated a potentially fatal altercation between those involved. So lets ask the question in the OP again, why is Alex Jones specifically getting sued for an amount seemingly plucked out of an Austin Powers movie, yet the other thousand instances that happen every day get ignored or even celebrated? I can certainly think of worse instances of abuse and harm than what Alex Jones did. Can't you?

To put things in a different context, if public figures start talking about the inherent evil of a people, and then others start attacking those people in the street at random, do we punish the public figures or the people who committed the crime? It seems bizarre to blame Jones as if he was the one phoning these peoples homes, right?

Free speech is meant to protect citizens from a tyrannical government, isn't it?

No it's not. Free speech as a concept is meant to sanctify and elevate the individuals right to expression within a society above that of the right of others to silence.

That still doesn't answer the question asked. Why is Alex Jones the one getting slapped with a trillion dollar bill? This question isn't being asked in a vacuum. The question arises from the context of other cases and events. There are families who have had their loved ones killed, and then watched the court system be as lenient as it can be on the killer. Where is their trillion dollars? Why, if its about empathy for other peoples grief and vengeance, do we not slap every deserving criminal with a trillion dollar bill?

I was under the impression that the problem here was not that someone believes something to be untrue about these peoples lives, but that there were people calling their homes and, in the true meaning of the word, otherwise harassing them.

I am not sure how things work legally in the US, but it seems odd to me to run some causal chain of events in attempting to deduce what the primary cause was and then piling all them blame on that cause. If it's not illegal to believe that Sandy Hook was a hoax, then why is it illegal to say it? I mean, I can easily understand why it's illegal to phone someones house multiple times. The other things seem much more muddied to a point where I doubt the consistency of the support for this sort of prosecution.

Alex Jones could have been Alex Jones and made up a different lie that didn't implicate random strangers as adversaries in some grand conspiracy. For example, he could have said that Adam Lanza was CIA.

Which would still be irrelevant to the question as to why he got slapped with a trillion and not others.

Many many cases go to court every day, so I'm not sure what you're saying here. Jones clowned in court, and if you do that, all bets are off.

Really? There are that many trillion dollar bills flying around the justice system?

I have difficulty imagining a more ghoulish use of a radio show than to slander the mourning parents of slain children.

I didn't specify radio shows. I said any instance of abuse or harm. Can you not think of any worse ones, more deserving of a trillion dollars in damages, than what Alex Jones did?

I suspect that someone saying 'Cops are liars, none of them died in 9/11, they're just trying to take away our right to brandish box cutters on airlines' they'd be in shit just as deep.

Why would you suspect that? Has that ever happened? I mean, when was the last time anyone got into shit a trillion dollar deep?

In my ideal world we'd discourage that type of thing, yes.

But we would not discourage group slandering, even though it leads to the exact same result? I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. What if someone started killing members of the CIA because Alex Jones said Adam Lanza was a member of the CIA? Would that not, by your standard, be the fault of Alex Jones?

We live in the age of untouchable useful idiots who can be used for plausible deniability. In days past, people were more direct, and law enforcement got good at nailing organized crime. So now we have this: distributed crime with no explicit orders and all relationships are parasocial.

I don't understand the relevance of this. Nor do I understand the conflation of Alex Jones and InfoWars with organized crime.

Those would all be relevant arguments if we were talking about purely win/lose consequence. But we're not. We are talking about trillions vs slaps on the wrist.

That answer is obviously lacking considering no other defamation cases end up with a trillion dollar tagline.

A lot of places don't have a two term rule or anything similar, leading to prime ministers who sit 10-15 years and there are no issues. In short, I'm not really understanding the doom and gloom in your post.

Saying that countries have weaker executives is irrelevant to the fact that there are people in power who sit there for years.

My country, generally considered one of the best in the world when it comes to democracy stuff, had a president who sat in office for 20 years. An office that had the executive power to refuse to sign laws into effect, which the president used more than once. During the same time the prime minister had held office for 12 years as such. You can play pretend and say that because the country is run by a parliament filled with political parties there is some wiggle room for... whatever it is you think is not 'dictatorship', but in reality, the prime minster was also the guy that had executive control over the biggest party in the country and was very buddy buddy with another party leader of a very big party which meant they had de facto complete control over the country. Having a weaker executive was irrelevant. These guys could do what they want, which they did.

I don't see why the label of 'dictator' is in any way relevant nor, still, do I understand the doom and gloom of your post or the implied optimism of alternatives.

Most places have serious issues.

Take any defamation case that did not result in a trillion dollar fine and compare it with this one.

I agree completely. Where I don't agree is that if we just had voting booths and term limits, those problems would be in any meaningful way affected.

Race isn't the question. The question is instead just a proxy for race. Repeat ad infinitum.

The mythology of culture as an external force that perpetuates itself on its own motion is just that.

The only coherent definition of cultural expression is that of genetic material expressing itself in an environment. If you drastically change the environment you change the culture. On top of that, genetic expression can change environment in a feedback loop. But as soon as you change the genes, such as can be seen with, for example, Pakistanis in Britain, you get a massive shift where it becomes obvious where the non-Pakistani genes were doing the work and where the environment was modulating behavior.

There is also a hidden assumption here I find wrong. That, because someone in the past was using primitive tools or technology they must be 'primitive' in comparison to a modern human, that their modes of behavior and emotion were somehow primitive or different in a way that would distinguish them from the emotional expressions of a modern human. There is no reason to assume that the people of the past differ from the people of the present. I am in fact quite sure that a lot of people from the past would become quite docile if they lived in the same luxury modern people live in. And they would modulate their behavior accordingly if their luxurious lifestyle was threatened by them stepping out of line. In fact, it would be absurd to suggest otherwise given this is where the modern man came from. Even if the transformation wasn't without some culling of volatile genetic material, there is no reason to assume that the all the volatility of the past was culled, and that it did not instead modulate to a more prosperous future.

The extra qualifiers are completely irrelevant or flat out wrong. Irrelevant in the sense that, similar to how people want to put themselves behind thought crimes, if I break a window in response to a republican getting elected am I then a better person than if I break a window due to a democrat getting elected?

Flat out wrong in the sense that the people went to protest, not to overthrow the rule of law but to, in their view, justly impose it. They believed that Pence had the legal authority to overthrow the FAKE election results and reinstate a the authentic election results.

In either case it's an wordgame of chess where the entire argument is based on bad faith assumptions about these people. But also, in either case, it would still be completely wrong and irrelevant since we have an example of the same actions taking place when Trump was elected. But then, every single time, the argument oscillates back to 'but that wasn't a serious threat' despite it being already established that no one believes that the J6 was a serious threat either.

European jews don't have an IQ of 115. At best you have an upper bound estimate at around 109. Lower bound being 104.

Looking at jewish IQ and the total number of jewish people in the entire world, any high IQ jew would be outnumbered by a similar IQ Anglo, in the US alone, by a factor of 6.