domain:felipec.substack.com
ControlsFreak
28m ago
there’s a relevant passage on page 38. Evangelis argued that homelessness, due to its mutability, does not fit Robinson’s definition of a status. It’s exactly what Corkran was trying to rebut when you quoted her.
Sure. Evangelis and Corkran seem to agree that people cannot go from being addicted to drugs to not being addicted to drugs. It didn't stick out all that starkly when Ms. Evangelis spoke about it (though I notice it more clearly now; Corkran also said the same thing but not as starkly in her response to Roberts). She seemed to be thinking more about the "struggle" part. It stuck out massively when KBJ spoke to Ms. Corkran.
I couldn’t actually figure out where mutability came into play.
Evangelis and Corkran seem to agree that addiction to drugs is immutable (to some extent; Evangelis is a bit less clear here). Evangelis thinks that this is a distinguishing factor from Robinson, thinking that the Robinson Court, at that time, also viewed it as some sort of immutable, which contributes to an argument of it being a "status". Corkran disagrees, thinking that the Robinson Court simply got the facts about addiction wrong, that they thought it was mutable (but it's really not), so they were thinking that mutable things could still be a "status". Thus, Evangelis thinks that Robinson supports mutable things being not a status and immutable things being a status, while Corkran thinks that Robinson implicitly supports both mutable and immutable things being a status (dependent upon some other features, apparently).
So at what point did this become “lefty science”?
The point where EVERYONE suddenly believes that people who are addicted to drugs cannot, in any way, become not addicted to drugs! This is a huge H-WHAT?!?! moment. I've been constantly bombarded for decades now with messaging that we just need "treatment", and that will solve all our public policy problems with drug addiction. It's a magic panacea that, if applied appropriately and with sufficient outlay of government monetary resources, will be able to convert people who are addicted to drugs into people who are not addicted to drugs. Now, suddenly, out of nowhere, everyone seems to agree that this is just impossible. This is, frankly, incredible New Science. I'd be open to a scientific argument with links to scientific experiments and theorizing that support this incredible New Science; if convincing, I may even agree with it. However, until I see a remotely convincing argument with actual scientific evidence, I'm going to default to it being the new Lefty Science Party Line, akin to the prior consensus on biological determinism of sexuality, that has been adopted primarily due to political reasons and raw social force rather than genuine scientific evidence.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
29m ago
Trade-off. For us the money and lifestyle to which we were accustomed was here, plus safety, cleanliness, and a degree of what for lack of a better term I'll call culture. My home in Alabama had giant yards, lakes, ski boats, big Golden retrievers, and all the high protein meals one could ask for, and of course family, but beyond my parents I don't miss my extended family to any real degree with only two exceptions, and was happy to be far from them. My very close friends are still in touch, some daily thanks to LINE and Whatsapp
I think for many reasons women who have children benefit from their mother nearby, in ways that are not immediately apparent for men. My wife's family is also a plane or bullet train ride away, but that's quite close in modern terms. I mean there's no time zone difference or significant financial hit to connect. Currently flying internationally feels like being robbed at gunpoint.
Tenaz
30m ago
These don't actually exist. You can't act on disbeliefs. If it looks like you are acting on them, you're not, you're just acting on related beliefs which you do sincerely believe.
Or, maybe you think something is unlikely, but still dangerous enough not to risk. This isn't acting on disbeliefs either.
Quantumfreakonomics
34m ago
Or that the conduct is different if different people are doing it?
I challenge any gay man to have sex with his husband by inserting his penis into his husband's vagina.
More seriously, I've never read Lawrence, and don't particularly feel like subjecting my eyes or brain to tortured legal reasoning at the moment. Is it written in a way that would allow a state to criminalize anal sex in general without regard to the sex of the persons?
Tenaz
35m ago
All solicitor generals are first-strings. The federal government isn't bringing cases to the supreme court that they don't consider important.
I can link some of the new aid package grants as backup if you like. There's a lot of "$950,000 for empowering equitable feminist solar infrastructure stakeholder committees in Ukraine."
The country is going to look very different when the US is done with it. And not "richer," since most of the money will end up as kickbacks to western NGOs.
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
40m ago
So it is fiction, about pretending to be forced into some sexual acts, via nonexisting method?
Yes it is fiction, typically mind control erotica features elaborate magic/sci-fi scenarios that aren't possible in real life.
How many layers of indirection people need here?
It's not about indirection. It's very direct. Contra @aqouta, for most people into hypnosis porn (the people who self-insert as the sub anyway; others might self-insert as the dom), the idea of a total loss of control, of utter submission and objectification, ego death, etc., is the entire point. That is the object of erotic fascination. It's not a preliminary step to another thing.
2rafa
42m ago
Yeah, my biggest fear in life other than death is that they won’t live to see me have kids and to be able to help with them, so it’s something I think about a lot especially because I want to benefit from their advice and wisdom as much as possible. I think it would be hard to be away from them, but if we moved back to where I’m from my partner’s parents wouldn’t be able to help or see their grandchildren often either (as in your case of course).
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
42m ago
Yes, 5-4 with the three on the left plus Barrett and Kavanaugh. Probably with some hedging that will mean nothing.
2rafa
46m ago
Do you think the law is going to be struck down by SCOTUS? That would be one hell of a blackpill.
practical_romantic
54m ago
I'm not talking about myself. I want to help kids learn English
Every year, but only once a year. We lived, my wife and I, with them for six months once, but they were fine-ish then. Cancer was sudden for my mother, and she died far too early at 73. But you never know when shit like that will hit. I went when she was first diagnosed, but by then it was stage IV multiple myeloma.
When my wife had the boys, each time, my mom came over to Japan. This was well before her illness. She, too, seemed fine, and in much better shape than my dad, but she was 11 years younger. Then when the boys were old enough to not be screamers on the plane we took them over each Christmas. My brother lived with my parents at that point and this was something I convinced myself was a benefit, but it turned out to be quite different, as my brother is a slackass. (There's no other way to put it; in fact I'm being generous.)
My dad lived a good five or six years after she died, just past his 90th birthday. The few times we went to visit after her passing were difficult, and each time when we said goodbye I could see in his eyes he was resigned it would be the last time. Then COVID hit, and this irrefutably, escalated the speed at which he deteriorated. Support that should have been there simply wasn't. And in those days just up and flying over was not an option. Even when he died I had to go through all sorts of tedious bureaucratic cartwheeling just to fly over and back (though by then those hoops were predominantly on this side. No one in the US seemed to give a shit, including his nurses prior to hospice whose commitment to a sterile environment did not seem steadfast.)
I also found the distance difficult, as you say, particularly when my sons were their only grandchildren, but their demise seemed far off then, decades away, like my own death seems: unimaginable somehow.
Edit: Apparently MM has only stages I, II, and III, but I am sure I heard someone say stage IV. Anyway, the last stage, the end stage.
2rafa
1hr ago
Modern communities aren’t really set up for adults to socialize with friend groups every night. I wish they were (I think this was part of the appeal of Friends and to some extent Cheers). If you’re spending time by yourself or with a partner then - assuming you don’t have the energy for exciting activities - you are indeed just going to be consooming entertainment much of the time. I don’t think that’s so bad, and I agree that TikTok isn’t necessarily much worse than just watching TV, although I allow for the possibility that it reduces attention spans in a dangerous way (as yet unproven).
2rafa
1hr ago
My grandmother had Alzheimer’s and my grandfather spent the final six years of his life taking care of her. We hired help, but he wanted to be there for her. It ruined him. He practically starved himself to death, lost the will to live even though he had previously been a remarkably healthy man in his early 90s. He watched his wife grow to hate him, shout, yell, turn into a horrible person (through no fault of her own, she had been a very loving and caring wife, mother and grandmother before her condition set in) and it destroyed him. He had been set on living to 100, had planned a long retirement of reading and walking, traveling, playing poker which was his great joy and so on. He was independent until a few months before he died. Everyone in my family (including the doctors) believes wholeheartedly that if my grandmother had been hit by a bus a few months after being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s he would have made it to three figures, might even still be around today. His mother lived to 103 and his father to 94, so he had the genes for it.
I think in your case it will depend on what your father in law wants to do. If he is truly committed and sees it as part of his marriage vows, it will be hard to shake him out of it, and you will bear witness to a tragedy (albeit hopefully much less bad in your case). If he would in any way accept someone else (perhaps a sister or brother in law, maybe your children or nieces/nephews if you have any) looking after her for a while, then I would take him as soon as possible. I know my dad wishes he had spent more time traveling with his father.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1hr ago
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".
iprayiam3
1hr ago
Dude, you went less than a week. That is not enough time to update on how much social media affects you. I know it's oversimplified, but remember the saying - it takes 21 days to form a habit. Point is, id give any lifestyle change a month before speculating on how it affects you.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1hr ago
What's this?!?! A distinction between "having an urge" and conduct?!? In the realm of sexuality? Say it isn't so! How many times can The Lefties That Be just boldly admit that the entire slew of homosexual behavior to gay marriage cases were based on a fundamental lie?!
I'm a little confused what the lie is supposed to be. In both Lawrence and Obergefell the state was discriminating against people because of their status. If two people of the opposite sex wanted to engage in some conduct they could, but if the two people were of the same sex they couldn't. The conduct wasn't at issue, the status of the participants was. Unless the idea is being a particular sex is conduct rather than a status? Or that the conduct is different if different people are doing it?
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1hr ago
Man, I dunno what happened here, but chill out.
One day ban.
2rafa
1hr ago
How often did you visit home before your parents’ death? Mine are not yet 70 and seem in good health, but it is a subject matter I find difficult.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1hr ago
Still a professional word-wrangler. Still funny to hear him tongue-tied.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1hr ago
Why do you think it’s misplaced sympathy and not, I dunno, doing their jobs?
Surely it’s not just because they’ve disagreed with your intuition.
Quantumfreakonomics
1hr ago
especially Gorsuch reducing a professional to a stammering mess.
Kneedler is the government's third-string solicitor general. If they thought this case was important, they would have put Fletcher or Prelogar on it.
Technically no, but that's because the logic of Lawrence would extend Griswold and similar right-to-privacy cases to prevent the state from criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults of either the same or opposite sex. Quoting Lawrence:
The opinion then goes on to discuss various right to privacy cases and ultimately come to the conclusion a prohibition on sodomy would likely be unconstitutional applied to basically anyone. Quoting Lawrence again:
More options
Context Copy link