But who sets the agenda here? How is it done in the executive rooms behind the scenes? — schopenhauer1

To a certain extent, I think scum rises to the top and then you have a circle jerk. You see a lot of the same names running the circuit. First they have to prove their bona fides. Sometimes that means they actually believe what they say and they are zealots about it. Other times they are smart and know what plays, and so they make their living that way. But they have to rise through the ranks, talk radio, local politics, etc. Once they've proven they can consistently be a troll or a clown or something that get's people going, then the "talent" scouts will ensure they aren't a 15 minute flash in the pan (like that dummy that shot Travon Martin) and the present the stable to the execs in the board room. I'm sure that "test marketing" is done and they weed out those who can't stand under pressure or stick to talking points, or get distracted by truth and facts. Then you have your Rogan, Carlson, Limbaugh, Jones, et al.

They create an environment where these tools are seen as gatekeepers of truth and if a guy or gal cannot hold their own against these idiots, then they become fresh meat for the grinder. More ratings. If one side of a two-sided fight starts to win too much, then that side is marginalized until the other side keeps up. In short, nobody wants to see anybody knocked out in the first round. We want a 15 round bloody, savage fight. Once side can be thoroughly trashed, so long as they stay on their feet and take the beating. But the media has no use for a loser. Those in the fight know this, and keep punching even when they've lost. It's good for the team. Fuck the truth. Brass knuckles are fine. Hell, toss in a gun and it's even better. Why, I could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and no one would care! If the person I shot was "on the other side" then great! More ratings. Higher poll numbers. That's the ticket!

The fucking dummies love that shit. Entertainment becomes existential. To hell with health and welfare.

I was. Some adults called it "puppy love." But it was every bit as real as any other love I have experienced, and it was as, or more compelling in it's own way. However, time heals all wounds, if you let it. Other loves have shown me that I'm glad I did not get what I prayed for. I would have "stalled". We would have had a Bonny and Clyde thing goin on. Or just stalled. My soul mate is the Earth.

Anyways, my question here though relates to how people are chosen for interviews.. — schopenhauer1

Ratings = $. Who is going to get more people watching/listening? Like reality T.V. That's why the orange fat ball was so successful. That's why the media gave him so much free air time. That's why they play "gotcha" and "whataboutism". Which sap is most likely to play into your efforts to trigger a ratings-favorable reaction? I could go on, but you get the point. It has zilch to do with a search for truth or enlightenment. It's a circus.

There is nothing disproved about the fact that men can afford other men rights. — NOS4A2

It's not disproved by the fact that they can. It's disproved by the fact that they don't. We came up with the state, flawed thought it may be, to move us closer to the can. And, notwithstanding state wars and state oppression, we have moved closer to the can.

But it's like Covid 19 vaccines: those who don't want to go along fuck it all up for everyone else, and move us back toward the don't.

That never happened, so the public in Wisconsin has failed to reprove the beliefs, values, and judgements exhibited by R in this case. — Michael Zwingli

Yeah, I read the reason the gun charge was dropped. Barrel length issue. WI law. When I was a kid out west, I could carry a long gun to hunt, but not self-defense. I suppose I could have used it for self defense while hunting. Maybe R was just hunting. But out west it's illegal to hunt people. We used to have vigilantes who hung people, but we decided to delegate to the sheriff when he did his job. Different states, different laws. Different lessons being taught. But we're learning how the game is played.

:up: Yeah, it's harder to de-globalize than it is to vax.

Exactly, they stole the land and gave it to their friends. It’s an organized monopoly. Now you say I should become their friend, to enjoy “all they’ve given you”, which turns out to be no more than the fruits of their robbery. — NOS4A2

No, I think you should distinguish between the tool and those who wield it. When you blame to tool you just do what they want.

I’m not an anarchist when it comes to the organization of defence. Though I believe people should protect their communities, they are at risk being wiped out and subject to the worst that man can offer. So I agree with Paine that government may be a necessary evil in that regard, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world. — NOS4A2

Thanks. Good luck. Oh, and we will be sending a bill for a tiny fraction of the other stuff you enjoy, and which you would not have, but-for .gov.

No, it didn’t earn it. — NOS4A2

Hey, I've got a question for you: Down here in the U.S., the servicemen and women, and the cops are venerated. They provide that thin green line, and thin blue line between us and the forces of evil foreign states, and domestic criminals that might otherwise invade and/or do us harm. I'm wondering how you feel about their association with government? How that protection should be handled, or if it should? Should it be privatized? Or just done away with all together? Do you think they've contributed positively or negatively to you lifestyle and standard of living? I'm not talking about foreign adventures. I'm just asking about the local stuff.

No, it didn’t earn it. First it begged for it, as with war bonds, then it took it, as with income tax. — NOS4A2

Wait, what? I thought government took everything under threat of force? You mean .gov actually asked, begged even? And here I thought you were in the camps!

Only after the money is seized could it provide for you the things you claim it does. — NOS4A2

No, only after .gov subdued the Indians and stole their land, and subsidized your railroads, lumber, mining, etc. could those industries "earn" their ill-gotten social welfare gains. That's how .gov earned it. Then it protected you and them to go about your rape of the land.

It doesn’t just start providing services in wait for some true-believer like James to tell everyone it is deserving of some payment for its services. — NOS4A2

Actually, it does. Only it's not me it waits for. It waits for your Plutocratic heroes to pull the levers.

The government created the problem by imposing lockdowns, shuttering businesses, forcing people in their homes, thereby altering consumption and shopping patterns. — NOS4A2

The government didn't create those problems. Stupid people who refused to mask, distance and vax created those problems. But hey, if it altered consumption and shopping patterns for the best, I'm all in. I hear the air got cleaner, and even saw instances where wildlife started venturing back into towns, etc. Good deal! It's about time people started paying true cost for their welfare.

Anyway, you should be thanking Biden for pulling the stuck turn out of the capital ass.

The government didn’t earn that money, that’s for sure. It won’t give to anyone but itself. — NOS4A2

Yes, it earned it. I started to list the countless things it did for you and others to earn it (which is to not keep it, but turn around and give it back in many services, and few goods), but it's a thankless task for the ungrateful and ungraceful, so I won't waste my time.

Brilliant. If taxes go up on shipping then shipping raises the prices, and, as usual, the cost is left up to the citizen. — NOS4A2

Good. They need to internalize a fraction of the true cost of all that plastic shit they consume.

It makes no sense, if true. — NOS4A2

So, you believe in welfare? Where costs are passed on to that and those that did not incur them? Who'd a thunk it? Old NOS supports cost externalization!

But also as usual, government sees itself to the solution to a problem it created, like any protection racket. — NOS4A2

How did the government create that problem? Oh yeah, I forgot: the government embargoed China, and then ginned up the Corona. Got it. P.S. If .gov created the problem, then how come a tax fixed it? I mean, those boys at the port were wringing their hands and saying it couldn't be done, and market forces wouldn't allow it. All of as sudden the constipation frees up. Turns out all they needed was a little incentive. I thought markets did that?

About damn time you got the real picture. Welcome to the club eh. Wednesday night is wing night and the jackets are on order. — Book273

Oh I've always been on board for a reset. I've just got an ingrained opposition to those who I perceive as bullies, conservatives, Trumpers, Republicans. If it just about bringing us back to the Pleistocene, I'm all in.

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another. — NOS4A2

Sounds good, especially if you take from those who didn't earn it, or pay true cost for it, and give it to those who earned it, or payed the cost for it.

Anyway, on another tangent, I heard Biden put a $100.00/day tax on all containers backed up at the ports. Then, all of sudden, companies discovered a way to get product moving. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, :rofl:

Actually, I don't know if that's all that great. I mean, think of all the tons of plastic Chinese shit coming in. Hmmm. !Murica!

Stable viruses.

Corona virus 19 (and variants)

Unstable virus.

Vaccine for stable virus: effective. — Book273

Again, you missed the point of the analogy. The stable/unstable distinction does not address the purpose for which the analogy was proffered. Specifically, there was a claim that if there was a failure to have 100% vaccination rates, the vax would fail. That is simply not true. It is not true of stable or unstable viruses. You do not need 100% vaccination rates for either. Hope that helps.

On another tangent, I read somewhere that POTUS was trying to get the rest of the world to go along with freeing up the patents on the vaccines so they would become ubiquitous. I don't know if that is true, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why, back when this all started, we were trying to block other countries from access to data. I would have thought that the Chinese, Russians, et al would not need to engage in pharma espionage to steel the vax data. I would have thought everyone everywhere was working hard to stop this shit.

Damn, I'm naïve sometimes. Hell, I thought people would mask, distance and vax. I thought Uncle Sugar was funding all this, directly, or with subsidy, or through universities, etc. I thought states would encourage, and feel free to share information about infections, without fear of travel restrictions that weren't applicable to all states.

I guess the whole thing is not that big of a deal. Only millions dead, and packing long-haul symptoms. And most of them are useless members of society, who don't do the Plutocracy any good anyway. Thinning the heard, I guess.

Hopefully it's not a dry run for some worse, airborne, highly contagious thing that kills after 30 days of incubation. Humanity has proven itself unworthy. On the other hand, wildlife and wildlands will have a party.

Do you think there are such things as unjust laws? Morally bad, wrong laws, that morally should not be enforced, and that nobody is morally obligated to obey -- despite, nevertheless, actually being the law, in full compliance with all legal requirements for laws? — Pfhorrest

I do think there are such things as unjust laws, morally bad, wrong laws, that morally should not be enforced, and that nobody is morally obligated to obey, but I don't think they are in compliance with all legal requirements for laws. I asked you for examples, but crickets.

If you say no to that, then you're a reprehensible monster and I'm not going to continue this conversation. — Pfhorrest

Okay, but before you go, I’m going to tell you something you don’t want to hear. I do so because the state-loving, paternalistic dad in me thinks it will be good for you to hear.

You really aren’t that special. Now don’t get me wrong. You are special. In fact, I think the U.S., at least ostensibly, thinks you are more special than any other state. (I say “ostensibly” because the state itself has been corrupted by the Plutocracy who doesn’t think you are worth shit; well, unless you are producing or consuming for them.) But you aren’t so special that the state will subordinate itself to you. In fact, it would be grossly immoral for the state to subordinate itself to you. You are not a sovereign citizen, and you are not sovereign. The state does not, nor should it, allow appeals from the SCOTUS to you. Sorry.

But that little piece of reality, as harsh as it may seem to you, does not then mean the state is immoral, or that it lacks moral legitimacy. Indeed, it proves just how moral the state is. I certainly don’t want you running things, or having state power. Now that-there would be immoral!

I just gave the balance of your post a cursory glance but didn't see much new, other than an effort to change what you originally said. So, as a reprehensible monster, I'll exercise my sovereign powers of evil to stay my wrath, and exercise the magnanimity of the state. Carry on.

:100:

That just means an agent of the state did something contrary to what the state said they could. It's the laws themselves that can be arbitrary. — Pfhorrest

First of all, "can be" does not equal "are". You need to come up with an example. While you are searching, find one that was promulgated in violation of the moral principles set forth in the underlying authority.

Documents which can say anything, or be interpreted to mean anything, that the people with all the power say they do. — Pfhorrest

That would be you, not the the documents. You are saying they can say anything. But they don't. They say something. That something is the moral underpinning that you interpret to mean nothing because they are, allegedly, interpreted or applied or promulgated arbitrarily. So you see, it is your unsubstantiated interpretation that is arbitrary. And I see no morality in your claim.

My son just asked me about the definition of "pretentious." We talked about it. I think you are pretending to a morality by pretending to charge the state with arbitrariness just because you are jealous of the state's power to compel you by force. Yes, the state can compel you by force. But that does not mean the state is acting immorally, either in the compelling, or in the promulgation and enforcement of the laws that it acts pursuant to while forcing compliance.

See Hume's "carried aboard a ship asleep". — Pfhorrest

No thanks. I will allow you to argue on your own two feet.

I said power != moral legitimacy. — Pfhorrest

???

Just because they can force you to comply with their commands does not make their commands morally binding. — Pfhorrest

Now you are switching horses, from "arbitrary" to "morally binding." If you don't feel morally bound, that does not mean the state has to honor your morality (or lack thereof). Nor does that mean the state is arbitrary or immoral in it's refusal to respect your morality (or lack thereof).

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Emphasis added.

After stating that, the Declaration goes on to do exactly that, laying out the moral authority which is anything but arbitrary.

After delineating all that moral authority, the Constitution kicks off likewise: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Now you may think that is all empty BS, but it's not. Anyone who endeavors to interfere with the stated goals may sit back, self-righteously, indignantly, jealously, and complain about the power they don't have, but that does not mean the state is acting without moral legitimacy.

Power does not = moral illegitimacy
— James Riley

I never said it did. — Pfhorrest

You said:

No states are morally legitimate; — Pfhorrest

Maybe you could explain yourself. Maybe we are just two ships passing in the night, talking about something entirely different, talking passed each other. I'll need some help.

And it does not have to be spelled out for everyone, only for itself. — Pfhorrest

That is incorrect. It does have to be spelled out for everyone. The fact that it must be is one part of the moral authority underpinning the state. I kicked the federal government's ass a few times in court. My argument was the old tried and true charge of "Arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law." The state lost because it was acting arbitrarily, etc.

If part of the state (e.g. the legislature) says that such-and-such is mandatory or prohibited and the rest of the state (e.g. the judiciary) goes along with it, then no further explanation to anyone is taken to be necessary. — Pfhorrest

That is incorrect. No further explanation to anyone is necessary because it has already been explained. You knew or should have known better. Just because your cause is a loser, does not mean the legislature did not follow the law and that the courts rubber-stamped it. It just means you are a loser. Your "If" is a big IF. Your IF is assuming that when the legislature says that such-and-such is mandatory or prohibited and the judiciary went along with it, that they were wrong; that they were arbitrary. The moral underpinnings of the U.S. system give you recourse; even up to and including waivers of sovereignty under Federal Tort Claims, etc.

There is no one else to appeal to, — Pfhorrest

Where would you go? The World Court? Jesus? Will you keep forum-shopping until you find a someone who rules in *your* favor? What would make you right? You don't have a right to appeal until you win unless you are right. The fact that the state finds you wrong does not mean it lack moral authority under the laws, as set forth in our organic documents. It just means you're a loser.

the state's authority is beyond question (according to the state). — Pfhorrest

Nowhere does the state say the state's authority is beyond question. The state specifically provides you with MORAL ways to question it's authority. If you don't think those ways are moral (see Declaration of Independence and Constitution) then the state goes one step further and allows you to find some other place in the world more to your liking.

The point here is this: Power does not = moral illegitimacy. Demanding the state agree with you, or provide endless review with unlimited scope and standards, is morally illegitimate.

:up: Thanks.

And so then they join another company or try to start their own, which works out all the time of course. — schopenhauer1

It would if they did, but they don't, because profits have allied against them, legislatively and practically (labor supply and demand). That's why workers of the world must unite; not just First World workers. So, simply saying "NO" is the answer the employers could and should receive, but won't. Now get back in your cubicle, STFU and work.

Each state constitution and the US constitution has a clause granting their legislature the power to create and enforce laws in general; often with some limitations, and sometimes nominally only within certain limited domains, but in practice that's always completely ignored, e.g. the US Congress doesn't have to cite which of the enumerated powers granted to them they are passing a law in the name of and show that that law accomplishes that purpose, unless they're challenged by the Supreme Court in which case they can usually just comically hyper-extend one of the enumerated powers like the Commerce Clause. In practice, if a state (either the constituent states or the federal state, in the case of the US) agrees with itself that something is a law, then you're forced to comply regardless of any argument to the contrary, which is tantamount to "because we said so". — Pfhorrest

So there is no claim of arbitrary authority. It is all based upon due process of law. And due process of law is all based upon the moral arguments set forth in the organic documents.

If one uses brute force to compel compliance, that is not de facto or de jure arbitrary. It may very well be morally founded. The "victim" of such force will complain such force is arbitrary. But that does not make it so. The power of the state is such that it need not spell it out for each individual, so long as it has been spelled out for everyone. The fact that an individual is ignorant of the law is no excuse, so long as the law is out there for the individual to have consulted.

The state does not need to explain itself so long as it has explained itself. Personally, I don't want my state having to run around pre-emptively explaining to Bob why he should not victimize innocent Charlie. If Bob's sense of morality does not comport with the state's sense of morality, that does not render the state's punishment of Bob to be arbitrary. Fuck Bob. Moral persuasion is set forth in innumerable locations, regardless of the the organic documents. If Bob is not persuaded, his suffering of the consequences is not arbitrary. It is well founded in morality.

Questions for our resident Doctors and epidemiological experts: Did the Delta variant arise in people who did not have Covid 19? Did the Omicron variant arise in people who did not have Covid 19? If the answer is in the negative, did those who had Covid 19 get it from wearing a mask? Did they get it from social distancing? Regarding Omicron, did they get it from taking a Covid 19 vaccine? How did these variants arise? Where did these new variants come from? Were they grown in labs? Did they come from bats? Who is responsible for these variants? No one?

Probability is not certainty, though, which is my first issue with this, since the angry expression of certainty only prompts "pushback" from defenders of the status quo, and then what ensues is a pissing contest. — Michael Zwingli

To draw a distinction between the mindset of individual cops and law enforcement is to perpetuate systemic racism. All those cops could have been black and it would not have made a difference if they gave the white boy with an AR a pass. That implicates the system (law enforcement) and systemic racism. That is the genesis of the anger that causes the "riots" in the first place.

The more significant problem with the statement "R would have been shot" is that it suggests that "R should have been shot", or "I wish that R had been killed", which is a pretty fucked up way to feel, as if the two wrongs could possibly "make a right". — Michael Zwingli

That goes to my point about push-back vs hypocrisy: the burden is not upon those who want the system to quit shooting blacks when they don't need shot: but burden is upon the system to quit shooting blacks or start shooting whites under similar circumstances. It's the system's choice, not the people. "Quit doing what 'we' are complaining about, or start being equal about it: Your choice." So far, we aren't seeing any movement on the "Don't shoot blacks" side of the equation, hence the protests and when protests do not work, we have riots. And when riots don't work, it's war. And it won't be the people's fault. Again, law enforcement (including the judge and the shooter) teach: Arm yourself! Oakey dokey. Where two wrongs don't make a right, we will throw in a third and it will be on the system, not the people.

Another problem with the speculation about what the outcome might have been if R had been "black" is that it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which appears to be whether justice was served by the trial. — Michael Zwingli

Justice was not served by the trial. And for those of you who think I'm not getting it because I wasn't there or didn't follow the trial closely, you need only go back up and re-read what I said about scope of review.

It's the arbitrariness of the claimed authority of the state that makes it morally illegitimate. — Pfhorrest

Where is this arbitrary claim of authority (in the U.S.)?

But you don't have -- and nobody has -- justification to just make anybody do or not do anything for no reason at all, just because they say so. But states by definition claim the power to do so, and since they're not morally justified in that claim, they are morally illegitimate. — Pfhorrest

When I read the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States, I see one of the most morally compelling justifications for any authority that I have ever read. Not just state authority, but any authority. There is no "just because they say so". There is always a reason. In fact, due process of law demands a reason. States are not by any definition claiming power to act arbitrarily. Far from it.

The facet of this discussion with which I take umbrage, and it is a peripheral issue at best, is the clear hypocrisy of faulting someone for assumed prejudice when that assumption is itself grounded in prejudice. — Michael Zwingli

It's called push-back, not hypocrisy. Those cops were not Barny Fife. You and I both know what went on there and what would have happened if the shooter would have been black. If you deny that, then you're either in denial or you're a liar.

What would it take to reduce the work week? — schopenhauer1

Might makes right. — NOS4A2

Might is sometimes right, might is sometimes wrong, but might does not create right. I suspect might only cares whether or not it is right to the extent being right smooths the way for it. But regardless, might is and always has been the way things are.

The state can do no wrong. — NOS4A2

Well that is clearly not true. I mean damn, the state sits around on it's hands all the time, protecting the rights of individuals to harm other individuals because they think it is their right to do so, and the state doesn't have the balls to stand up to them.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary i

I don’t like that view because it limits application of rights, and makes them subject to abridgement or suppression by the authority that confers them. — NOS4A2

It's okay that you don't like that view. You have the right to be wrong. But the state, whether you like it or not, retains the right, by force if necessary, to determine what is arbitrary and what is not. It is NOT arbitrary to deprive you of your most sacred right if there is a compelling state interest to do so, and if there is no lesser way of achieving the same end, and etc. (lots of case law). In other words, all rights have limits and the law will decide what those limits are. Not you or your subjective dislike of some view.

Many seem to take for granted that if R had been Atrican-American, that the cops present would simply have shot him dead, because what...all cops are prejudiced against African-Americans? However, is not the statement that "the cops who were present would have shot R if he had been a 'black' guy" not a prejudicial statement by definition? We have no basis to make such a judgement, since we do not know the minds of said particular cops. — Michael Zwingli

A juror is specifically called upon to use his subjective life experience in finding facts. However, the scope of the juror's review is limited by law (in this case, the so-called "judge"). The scope of review was limited to three separate time frames, which were the moments immediately preceding, up to, and including the pulling of his trigger by the defendant. The question: what was in his mind?

I'm not talking about that, and never have. Nor am I talking about what the shooter was thinking that brought him there. I can apply my subjective life experience to answer that question. And so can you. We all know what brought him there. He's a little POS.

No, I'm talking about the irrelevancy of those questions to the problem at hand.

I'm concerned with the law enforcement failure to act. You see, when you seek to control the battlespace, the last thing you want is a wild-card moving around, un-controlled, with an AR. This is a threat to you, your fellow law enforcement officers, innocent third parties, the shooter himself, and other players. Granted, law enforcement cannot control everything, but it is a gross violation of protocol to fail to take action when you have plenty of time to do so. They had plenty of time to take the shooter out of the equation. Peacefully, even. But they also could have thrown-down on him, placed his face in the asphalt and disarmed him, or they could have shot him if he were to resist.

Now I, and you, can utilize your subjective life experience to find as a matter of fact why those law enforcement officers did not do what their training taught them to do, and what we all know they would have done had the shooter been black. But those were not questions before the jury. The so-called "law" ignored those questions and, in doing so, they taught us all a lesson:

1. Do NOT attack a person with an AR.
2. Always have an AR if you do not want to be attacked.
3. Always have an AR.

Those are the lessons. And, hopefully, they will be learned. At least until such time as the so-called "law" decides that is NOT the lesson the law wants to teach. If it wants to teach a different lesson, then it will have to address what the little POS was thinking *before* and *as* he placed himself in the position he placed himself in. And the law can address why the cops did shit about him, before hand, when it was perfectly safe to do so.

So, those pretending to some superior, objective ignorance about what was going on in the mind of the cops are FOS. We all know why they let that little POS run around with his AR. Our subjective life experience tells us why. And that is emphatically the province of, and solely in the preview of us. If you disagree, then you do not have the subjective life experience that most people have.

We can hash out the details later, when the lessons we have been taught are finally learned, there is an all-out battle on the streets, law enforcement and BLM and Proud Boy bodies are stacked deeps, people are crying, and we're all wondering why it happened.

Then the civil war will be on, and "law enforcement" and "the judges" can all wring their hands and ask "what happened to us?"

And that's the kind of authority states categorically claim. — Pfhorrest

You've parsed a hair that I'd like to further explore. Regarding Alice, you distinguish between her morally legitimate command/force, and her lack of arbitrary authority. Okay, I get that. But, regarding the state, if it prevents Bob from attacking innocent Charlie under threat of force, is that immoral? Why would that be arbitrary?

And, if the state claims arbitrary authority, why is that morally illegitimate instead of simply amoral authority? My point being, can a non-human entity be immoral? Like a corporation, or a tree, or a wolf? Can't it simply be amoral?

I don’t think democratic policy change should entail the violation of basic human rights. — NOS4A2

They don't. You're just paranoid.

"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).

Yeah, I know nothing about emissions control tech, but any tech that lasts for mere months ain’t worth it. — NOS4A2

The lesson you obviously failed to learn is about learning. :roll:

:roll:

If your emissions control technology for automobiles worked for 3 to 6 months only you might think of a better solution. — NOS4A2

If you had even the remotest understanding of the science of emissions control technology, you'd know that the initial efforts lasted less than 3 to 6 months. You'd also know the normal turn-around time for vax development (can you say "years"?). You would also understand what a miracle science hath wrought with the imperfect RNA vax. I suspect science is working on an even better solution; not me, and not you, but REAL scientists who do REAL research.

But yeah, let's pretend to have critical thinking skills without any analytic thinking skills.

I whined about forced covid vaccines and their shit efficacy. — NOS4A2

Perfection is the enemy of the good. Our emission control technology for automobiles and factories is not 100%. Should we just trash it and go back to pumping billions of tons of poison into the atmosphere, until such time as we can satisfy every individual :cry: on the planet? I don't think so.

Apples and oranges. — Harry Hindu

An analogy, by definition, is not the thing itself. It is no argument to simply point that out. Rather, it is incumbent upon those who wish to defeat it to draw a distinction with a relevant difference. The point is, no successful vaccine ever relied upon 100% inoculation to be effective. So, I say again, look into polio, small pox, etc. Only this time, don't come back with an "Apples and oranges" drive by. Look into how those vaccines succeeded without 100% of the population of the Earth having to take them. That was the original point to which I was responding.

This is assuming quite a bit — Harry Hindu

It's not assuming anything. The distinction between us and nature is and always has been a matter of convenience. We like to distinguish between us and nature that we are part of. We could do the same with giraffes and the rest of nature. But that is not convenient. It doesn't make us feel better or special. And they aren't fucking up the Earth. So there's that.

You're still singling out humans as special in some way, — Harry Hindu

I'm not. We are. I don't think we're special at all. Different, yes. But so is a giraffe. "Special" denotes "better" (in my mind, anyway). And we clearly are not better.

The job of the police is to provide security for citizens — Outlander

They failed, when they let the shooter walk around with the AR, off private property, joking and palling around, showing him where their water was, you know, in case he got thirsty.

Had he been black, he would have been shot down as soon as the AR went to port arms, if not before.

kyle was pepper sprayed by the police when he tried to turn himself in — Miller

Too fucking late. They had plenty of opportunity to disarm him before hand. You know, when they were palling around with him, showing him where the water was, joking, etc.

You sound emotional so I’ll stop. — I like sushi

I am. Thank you for putting me back on track.

You missed my point. — I like sushi

No, I got your point. I just snipped your response where you should have stopped.