@spruce112358 said
Not really. Self-defense is not bad, so we, as liberals, are not condemning that.

When someone INITIATES a violation of your rights, you can respond as needed to compel them to stop.

Just for kicks and hypotheticals, will you unequivocally condemn the intentional use the rape of civilians as a weapon of war EVEN in defense?

Or, for example, do you think that the intentional use the rape of civilians as a weapon of war is fine in defense?

@spruce112358 said
I'll go ahead and condemn any organization that INITIATES a violation of the rights of others.

That's not what I asked. In fact, it's something quite different.

If you want to refuse, that's your choice.

But it kinda vitiates the point made in your OP.

@spruce112358 said
We don't have the right to place others at risk without their consent.

Examples:
Drunk driving. Let's say you manage to drive home without killing anyone. It is still wrong because you put everyone on the road at risk.

Pointing a gun at someone. The other person is 'at risk' because he doesn't know if it is loaded or what you intend.

Producing anthrax in your b ...[text shortened]... s beside the point. Putting others at risk without consent is wrong and a violation of their rights.

===Pointing a gun at someone. The other person is 'at risk' because he doesn't know if it is loaded or what you intend.===

I don't understand. How does that put him at risk?

@spruce112358 said
There. We've condemned everything bad you can think of including pedophila, misogyny, putting trash in the recycle bin, and cruising in the passing lane.

So you can't use that one anymore, AverageJoe!

Just for kicks, go ahead and condemn any organization that intentionally uses the rape of civilians as a weapon of war...

@zahlanzi said
the same way was pointing a gun at everyone you meet before they attack you isn't defense

Of course it is. It may not always be a good defense or a smart defense, but it's definitely a defense (if the intent is defensive, of course).

Walking around with a holster or a gun-like bulge in a dangerous area is quite a common technique, and is based on the same principle.

@averagejoe1 said
How can anyone who simply watches the news not be biased? Just the film clips of a president who has to be led around like a dog would cause be to biased about such a man sitting in the Oval. Or what if SHouse was on a jury in the Trump cases, he would not even bother with the evidence, he has seen enough. I impaneled a jury once, and in the voir dire, when asked about ...[text shortened]... efendant sitting there, and said.." I can tell by lookiing at him, he is Guilty!" She was let go.

That's an excellent question and one that can't be easily answered. The judge would have to keep trying until they found people who can be fair. That doesn't mean the jurors have to have no political opinions or not have heard of Trump, but they'd have to satisfy the judge that they can be impartial.

The person you dealt with is their not jury material or possible was trying to get out of jury duty.

@wildgrass said
What if the selection of an impartial jury is impossible?

If that's the case, the defendant would have to walk. A person cannot be convicted without a jury trial (unless he waives it) and if that can't be provided, then there can be no conviction.

@spruce112358 said
Of course, but then you have to start talking about QALYs (quality-adjusted life years).

How much would you say your QoL was reduced in 2021 let's say, compared to the average year? Due to COVID, and then due to COVID + the government response.

__________Normal Year______COVID____ COVID+ Gov Response
sh76 QoL _____1______________?______________?

2021? None. I happen to be lucky enough to live in an area where most people lived their lives as normal in 2021. I also got my shots in February of that year and starting 14 days after the second shot, I dropped the mask (except where required) and lived my life as normal. My family also, more or less, lived normal lives in 2021.

Unfortunately, many people weren't as lucky as I was.

2020 is a more complex question. I only really judge covid reactions after about May or June, as until then, we were all just running around like chickens with our heads cut off and nobody really knew what to do.

I am convinced that part of the reason for the summer of fire that year was the fact that people were both traumatized and bored.

In June of 2020, when all of a sudden, nobody cared about covid anymore during the Floyd protests, a joke started gaining currency:

"Did you hear the joke about the cure for covid? It's a riot!"

Fine, I figured, so now we're over worrying about covid.

Then September came and with it, all of a sudden, the governor of New York was declaring red zones where houses of worship were shut down and gatherings were once again being prohibited. And I'm like, WTF?

And then these scumbag politicians and media authorities started trying to gaslight us into believing that the whole summer of free-for-all never happened. That CHAZ and CHOP and the mostly peaceful cities ablaze were all a figment of right wing imagination.

The scales fell from my eyes and, while I still certainly support some government activities when private enterprise can't manage them, I'll never trust the establishment (on things that matter) without verifying again.

@spruce112358 said
Science can answer many questions effectively but it still proceeds from assumptions. If two scientists (Jha v. Bhattacharya) start from different assumptions, they will arrive 'scientifically' at different conclusions.

One set of assumptions says that if more people live longer, that's better.

The other assumes that large human die-offs are no big deal, and it is better not to impact the survivors quality of life.

Just out of curiosity, did it not at all bother you in the Spring of 2020 that The Science® told us that the college kids in Wisconsin who went to outdoor bars in May were death cultists but The Science® also explained to us that the George Floyd protests did almost nothing to spread covid?

Did you watch these things and say "oh, yeah; that makes sense"?

@spruce112358 said
Science can answer many questions effectively but it still proceeds from assumptions. If two scientists (Jha v. Bhattacharya) start from different assumptions, they will arrive 'scientifically' at different conclusions.

One set of assumptions says that if more people live longer, that's better.

The other assumes that large human die-offs are no big deal, and it is better not to impact the survivors quality of life.

Obviously, neither of those black/white assumptions is accurate or really represents anybody's viewpoint. The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between. Nobody takes the position that "large human die-offs are no big deal" but equally, nobody can take the position that a million people should suffer drastically reduced quality of life to give one 87 year old an extra 3 years of life.

Regardless, your post illustrates perfectly how "science" and "education" is almost by definition influenced by opinion, rendering the "you're anti-education or anti-science" cudgel used by many to attack those who disagree with them, as disingenuous nonsense.

@sleepyguy said
I think what some are identifying as disdain for education is actually disdain for left wing "educators" who take perfectly good young people and try turning them into bitter Marxists with gender dysphoria instead of successful happy people. Conservatives do value knowledge and skill, but modern universities have increasingly become an unsafe place to send your kids to get ...[text shortened]... Peterson, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman and son on, but I'll bet they don't count for some reason.

I'll add that "education" is too often viewpoint-limited in the eyes of the rightthink establishment.

For example, during Covid, Follow The Science® meant agree with people like Ashish Jha and models built by Niels Ferguson, but not Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya, because The Science® didn't include anything that subscribed to a non-approved viewpoint.

@shavixmir said
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68796363

[quote]US President Joe Biden says he expects Iran to attack Israel "sooner than later", as fears grow of Iranian retaliation over an air strike that killed top commanders early this month.
Israel has not admitted attacking an Iranian consulate in Syria but is widely believed to have been behind it.
US officials have ...[text shortened]... ing and starting whole bloody wars based on lies.

The whole country deserves to be fukking nuked.

Well, that "Don't" worked great.

@cliff-mashburn said
Several jurors later said that they thought he did it, but fell back on "reasonable doubt" to let him off. I believe they were fearful of reprisals by OJ fans or blacks in general if they found him guilty...and rightfully so.

They're lying. They let him off to punish the LAPD. The judge and the prosecution let the trial devolve into a circus and a trial of the LAPD rather than of OJ Simpson. As Robert Shapiro later said, they played the race card from the bottom of the deck. And it was an Ace.

@cliff-mashburn said
I remember the day of the verdict, spontaneous demonstrations erupted all over the country by blacks, delirious with joy. They drove around with their lights on and honking and waving at each other.
Soooo glad that OJ slaughtered two white people and got away with it.

I think it was more like a black guy finally beat the system that they felt was rigged against them and LAPD racists like Mark Fuhrman were finally exposed and punished.

But all that has nothing do with the OJ's guilt, which was clear and obvious to anyone with half a brain.