Does society not associate females with the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs?

Female: belonging or relating to women, or the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/female

Male: used to refer to men or boys, or the sex that fertilizes eggs, and does not produce babies or eggs itself:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/male?q=Male

The government where I live has fallen on some hard times, so hard in fact that it’s liquor and cannabis distribution workers are going on strike, with other state industries soon to follow. Besides a lack of product for drinkers and smokers, this poses a problem for small business owners, many of whom are still trying to make ends meet since the government shuttered their businesses during the Covid days. Since the state has taken it upon itself to monopolize liquor distribution, there is little to nothing these businesses can do. It is expected that workers will be out of a job before long. Eat the poor indeed.

It’s just the death throes of another establishment political dynasty. The Cheneys, the Clintons, the Bushs—all are heading towards the trash-bin of history.

A woman is an adult female human being. A man is an adult male human being.

And men are not able to. No one alive or dead was born of a man.

Right, an important distinction for this discussion thank you.
My understanding is gender is the way you feel about your sex, and sex being the biology of how you were born.
I thought that was the generally understood distinction?

Gender is best utilized as a staple of language, not of biology or psychology. Sex is a better descriptor, in most cases.

I’m saying that people who give birth and breastfeed are women.

I don’t know what any such characteristics would be. I can imagine waking up in a woman’s body, whether by magic or a brain transplant, and yet I’d continue to identify as a man, so it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with my body. And I can’t think of what psychological traits I have, except the obvious of identifying as a man, that would count as being such characteristics.

You’d be a woman because you could give birth and breastfeed. No amount of imagination can change that.

All this weird hand-wringing about rhetoric means little in the wake of such actions, in this case the unprecedented actions of federal law enforcement. Bill or Hilary were never raided, even when they lifted furniture from the Whitehouse or when they ran the fat cat hotel out of the Lincoln bedroom.

Sounds about right. The FBI has such a sordid past that it boggles the mind that anyone could trust them.

Victim: "The Stasi spied on me."

Stasi Spokesman: "All of it was above board.”

Then why did they return the passports? Because they shouldn’t have taken them. In this case the contents wasn’t theirs to take, and they knew it. Corruption, incompetence, stupidity.

Legal or not, it just goes to show their incompetence or corruption. They were there for classified documents and walked out with personal documents. Pretty basic stupidity

No I think it was ironic and wrong to take Trump’s passports.

No, they ought not to have. They should have grabbed “All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071, or 1519”. The parenthesis “and all contents therein” is simply a way to weasel out of constitutional violations and other incompetent or corrupt moves, such as taking Trump’s passports.

You’re defending the FBI taking things they ought not to have. That’s embarrassing.

Did they raid the house for Donald Trump’s passports? The answer is “no”. There is no need to weasel for their incompetence or corruption.

I’m not sure why you’re leaving out the first sentence, but passports aren’t “physical documents with classification markings”. It doesn’t matter anyways. The 4th amendment demands that law enforcement know what they’re taking before they take it.

It’s not reasonable to take people’s passports when you’re there to seize government classified documents. The FBI ought to know what they’re taking before they take it, and if they don’t, they are either incompetent or corrupt.

Stealing documents.

The irony.

Is it better to serve the self as an individual or see the self as all things and thus serve all things/others equally as your own body/personal needs.

It is certainly worse to see the self as all things and thus serve all things/others equally as your own body/personal needs for the simple reason that it isn’t true. As soon as you are unable to see yourself as an individual you cannot see others as individuals as well, and you risk sacrificing their individuality on the alter of your own ego. A good rule of thumb is “don’t live for others any more than you expect them to live for you”.

Magistrate judges are appointed by the court, not the president. (https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-trump-appoint-judge-who-approved-fbi-mar-lago-raid-1732495). This magistrate judge happened to recently recuse himself from a civil racketeering case that Trump has brought against the DNC, but never said why. (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article264444421.html).

He never said it was a sudden evening raid. He said it was an “unannounced raid”. (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/news-gf6pdxrpau2342)

Trump’s lawyer said she was basically kept in the parking lot during the raid.

The search warrant was personally approved by AG Garland, who is suspiciously missing from your inconvenient truth. “I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter.” (https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-garland-delivers-remarks)

Trump has been very vocal on Truth Social and his official website all weekend, despite your claims he has “gone dark”. (https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump)

OK. What is the difference between Amazon competing for control over internet sales and government competing for control over violence?

You say one is a monopoly, the other isn't.

The government has jurisdiction in a given territory over which it has the supreme and final authority. Amazon doesn’t. The motives, the commodities and services, and the scope of control are entirely different.

I can’t help it. I have never had any faith in their idea of justice, nor the American justice system and her institutions. The FBI has been especially odious in this regard and the historical record proves this.

I only tried to answer the question “How do governments monopolise violence?”

If you want to keep asking questions in a discussion forum, don’t be surprised when you get answers.

Was the attack on Salman Rushdie consistent with mainstream Muslim theology

If I remember correctly, Rushdie’s crimes were that of blasphemy. Though there is a theological debate whether such a crime should lead to worldly punishment, such as beheading, the very accusation can and has justified religious violence.

Not when those same agencies are engaged in reckless or criminal behavior.

I doubt it was reckless. That the judge who signed off on the warrant defended associates of Epstein is enough for me to know that Trump is scaring all the right people.

It’s often used against political opponents and whistleblowers.

It doesn’t matter his rationale.

So they're different because they're different. Great explanation!

To be fair, it was a shit question based on a false analogy.

Because it is a public and sensitive matter. It should be in an authority control, not in private hands or businesses.

That’s exactly the line of reasoning used to justify the state persecution of Assange and Snowden. The government’s criminality and murderous barbarism are certainly sensitive to some parties.

That they are using the overly-broad world war 1 era law used to justify jailing whistleblowers and critics of the government is enough for me to know that it reeks of politicization of the Department of Justice.

Why is it against the law to posses declassified documents?

None of this has been proven and all of it is without precedent. None of us have seen the affidavit. So your claim he broke the law is without merit, and given a long and poor history of such claims, just another conspiracy in my books.

Probably because a monopoly in trade has nothing to do with a monopoly on violence.

An Atlantic article. Nice. Here’s a NYT article.

Can presidents declassify matters directly?
Yes, because it is ultimately their constitutional authority.
…

Do presidents have to obey the usual procedures?
There is no Supreme Court precedent definitively answering that question.
…

What about nuclear secrets?

They are distinct, although for purposes of criminal law there is little substantive difference.

Congress has passed a law, the Atomic Energy Act, that imposes its own legal restrictions on mishandling information about how to build a nuclear bomb or enrich nuclear material. Such information is called “restricted data.” Legally, it is not the same thing as being “classified” under the executive order, although in everyday parlance people often refer to it as classified.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/14/us/politics/trump-classified-documents.html

Can you arrest a police officer or any government agent and jail him for committing violence? You cannot.

The people or institution that claim the monopoly on violence has what Weber called the “monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” The term “legitimate” underlies the principle. The principle does not imply that the state is the only entity committing violence, but it is the only entity authorized to commit violence.

Murder, torture, beatings...the usual. Do you live in Utopia by any chance?

Those are crimes, though. You’d be tried and imprisoned should you commit that violence. You’d be tried and imprisoned by those who have the monopoly on violence.