Oh, I think I see what you're saying now. You're misunderstanding the nature of legal arguments in documents like these.
The way that legal documents tend to be written is they will go through a number of different arguments to win the case, and those arguments can be mutually exclusive. For example, there are plenty of legal briefs out there that will argue mutually exclusive things such as "I didn't do it and if I did do it it wasn't against the law". You make the arguments that you think are going to win, not the arguments that you politically would like to be the ones to win.
The lawyer's jobs are not to win the case by the most politically acceptable means possible, it's to win the case. If they don't win the case on states rights grounds, then they will move on to other defenses including the fact that the states argument doesn't match with the text of the law.
Let's say that you were charged with a crime, and you didn't do the crime and you know that. Great, if you can win on that then you should. But what about if you can't win on that? If you didn't do it, but you couldn't get doubt in the evidence to that finishing line to prove reasonable doubt, are you just going to accept going to jail? Or in the event that the jury finds you did do the thing, are you going to make all of the arguments other than you didn't do it, such as if it was a murder, that it was in self-defense, or that there was no mens rea or any one of a bunch of different things that could win you the case, even though the truth is you didn't do the thing?
For people who aren't used to reading legal documents, it's pretty jarring, but again -- your side's lawyers want you to win, and you by definition cannot win unless you make the argument. If you have an incompetent counsel, and they don't make arguments that would let you win the case, even if the judge believes it you should get off, the judges job is to be an impartial arbiter and so they can't help you -- you just lose the case even though you shouldn't have. Also, if you make those different arguments they leave you open for the ability to appeal later because maybe you can ask for a second crack at the bat when it comes to the stuff I constitutional issues. If you don't raise the constitutional issues during the case, by definition you cannot appeal.
The way that legal documents tend to be written is they will go through a number of different arguments to win the case, and those arguments can be mutually exclusive. For example, there are plenty of legal briefs out there that will argue mutually exclusive things such as "I didn't do it and if I did do it it wasn't against the law". You make the arguments that you think are going to win, not the arguments that you politically would like to be the ones to win.
The lawyer's jobs are not to win the case by the most politically acceptable means possible, it's to win the case. If they don't win the case on states rights grounds, then they will move on to other defenses including the fact that the states argument doesn't match with the text of the law.
Let's say that you were charged with a crime, and you didn't do the crime and you know that. Great, if you can win on that then you should. But what about if you can't win on that? If you didn't do it, but you couldn't get doubt in the evidence to that finishing line to prove reasonable doubt, are you just going to accept going to jail? Or in the event that the jury finds you did do the thing, are you going to make all of the arguments other than you didn't do it, such as if it was a murder, that it was in self-defense, or that there was no mens rea or any one of a bunch of different things that could win you the case, even though the truth is you didn't do the thing?
For people who aren't used to reading legal documents, it's pretty jarring, but again -- your side's lawyers want you to win, and you by definition cannot win unless you make the argument. If you have an incompetent counsel, and they don't make arguments that would let you win the case, even if the judge believes it you should get off, the judges job is to be an impartial arbiter and so they can't help you -- you just lose the case even though you shouldn't have. Also, if you make those different arguments they leave you open for the ability to appeal later because maybe you can ask for a second crack at the bat when it comes to the stuff I constitutional issues. If you don't raise the constitutional issues during the case, by definition you cannot appeal.
Antidepressants are like emotional morphine. They kill the pain, but they don't solve the problem. If you broke your leg in six places, it hurts. It's supposed to hurt. If you try to walk on that broken leg, it's really going to hurt. That's your body telling you not to walk on that leg. Typically, the way that morphine is used is immediately before treatment to reduce the suffering of the patient, or after treatment to help manage the pain while the body is healing.
In the same way, antidepressants turn off the pain receptors, but it doesn't mean you're ok. It just means the injury doesn't hurt at the moment. Therefore, in the same way it should be used immediately before treatment to reduce the suffering of the patient, and during treatment to help manage the pain while the mind is healing.
Both opiates and antidepressants have negative side effects. Opiates are addictive narcotics, and antidepressants turn down many emotions not just pain. A heavily medicated individual will have an increasingly monotone voice because everything's getting that volume turned down. Many become increasingly unambitious, since the drivers have ambition also get the volume turned it down.
Now there's definitely people who make an argument that all drugs should be legal, but I think that if we go down that path it needs to be something that changes on a societal basis not on a piece by piece basis. If individuals are fully aware that just because something's on the shelf doesn't make it safe then there's a good chance there'll be a lot more careful than if there's one or two things the government says are okay but an entire universe of things that they regulate.
So having said that, it only makes sense under the current regime to keep antidepressants regulated because they need to be used carefully and wisely and usually as part of other treatment that should be aiming and getting you to the point that you don't need to take them anymore.
In the same way, antidepressants turn off the pain receptors, but it doesn't mean you're ok. It just means the injury doesn't hurt at the moment. Therefore, in the same way it should be used immediately before treatment to reduce the suffering of the patient, and during treatment to help manage the pain while the mind is healing.
Both opiates and antidepressants have negative side effects. Opiates are addictive narcotics, and antidepressants turn down many emotions not just pain. A heavily medicated individual will have an increasingly monotone voice because everything's getting that volume turned down. Many become increasingly unambitious, since the drivers have ambition also get the volume turned it down.
Now there's definitely people who make an argument that all drugs should be legal, but I think that if we go down that path it needs to be something that changes on a societal basis not on a piece by piece basis. If individuals are fully aware that just because something's on the shelf doesn't make it safe then there's a good chance there'll be a lot more careful than if there's one or two things the government says are okay but an entire universe of things that they regulate.
So having said that, it only makes sense under the current regime to keep antidepressants regulated because they need to be used carefully and wisely and usually as part of other treatment that should be aiming and getting you to the point that you don't need to take them anymore.
[Admin Mode] Not sure anyone but me uses FBXL Satellite at https://satellite.fbxl.net but it's updated to the latest repository now.
(and if I'm being totally honest, I just use mostr for contacting people on nostr)
(and if I'm being totally honest, I just use mostr for contacting people on nostr)
It can be done, but they're going to have to rethink what life looks like. It won't be nice, lots of people lose their gibs.
I saw someone post this with respect to Milei early on, and it continues to be true.
Maybe he turns out to be a charlatan in the end, but balancing a budget is by itself a huge step in the right direction.
Maybe he turns out to be a charlatan in the end, but balancing a budget is by itself a huge step in the right direction.
I would support a single law abridging freedom of speech: anyone who advocates for abridging freedom of speech immediately gets executed.
They get what they want! Problem solved!
They get what they want! Problem solved!
Do you have the whole set? I've got them hanging on my wall, from 1 to 100 trillion.
"No, don't be stupid. The global megacorp could never turn against me! We're the good guys!"
No kidding. "We need to reduce fossil fuel use!" How much does one of them f16 burn again?
I'd expect a casual effect there. Spend thousands on rings and you're not spending those thousands on building your life. $10,000 could either buy you a big rock that you keep in your drawer because it's going to get hurt anywhere else, or it could buy you all of your furniture and some of your minor appliances.
I also suspect a degree of selection bias, because the sort of people who think that spending a whole lot of money on a rock is a good idea I probably going to have unrealistic expectations about other parts of their life.
I also suspect a degree of selection bias, because the sort of people who think that spending a whole lot of money on a rock is a good idea I probably going to have unrealistic expectations about other parts of their life.
Seems like you did the right thing even if it sucks you didn't get the job: "oh, a noncompete? Looks like you can not compete for my labor"
It seems to me that you have a generation or two of people who think that things that are powerful will always remain that way, and it's only by virtue of the application of power that things become or remain powerful, rather than by being something beneficial or useful to many people who then empower the thing by making use of it.
The problem is that such a mistaken belief about the nature of the world is eventually going to run up against reality, and that's exactly what we are seeing. People who pursue power make their way into positions of powerful institutions, and then run them into the ground thinking that those powerful institutions can't possibly fail because they are powerful and all that exists is power.
In my view that's what we're seeing with stuff like people trying to take over media franchises, where they think that they can do anything they want with those media franchises afterwards and everyone will just sit there and continue buying it. We're also seeing it with respect to the US dollar system where obviously there's a lot of power that comes with being in the world's reserve currency, but you can't be the world's reserve currency while also using that currency to impose your values upon the rest of the world. Eventually, the rest of the world is just going to say "that's fine, impose your values upon yourself and we will use something else"
It goes to show that the neomarxists who only look at anything through the lens of power are incorrect. Power can come from many different things, either from violence such as the barrel of a gun like what mao believed, or alternatively through service such as proper capitalistic pursuits where the only way that you can convince someone to give you more of your money is to provide something that they want at a price that they want to pay. Arguably, the greatest generation of Americans understood this deeply which is why rather than absolutely crush Germany and Japan after they lost world war ii, and they helped to rebuild those countries into something new. This soft power is something that China also makes use of, and it's a lot harder to cultivate and maintain, but if you do things right it can mean that you have a much larger power base than if you try to cultivate power through hard power such as violence or other forms of hard coercion.
The problem is that such a mistaken belief about the nature of the world is eventually going to run up against reality, and that's exactly what we are seeing. People who pursue power make their way into positions of powerful institutions, and then run them into the ground thinking that those powerful institutions can't possibly fail because they are powerful and all that exists is power.
In my view that's what we're seeing with stuff like people trying to take over media franchises, where they think that they can do anything they want with those media franchises afterwards and everyone will just sit there and continue buying it. We're also seeing it with respect to the US dollar system where obviously there's a lot of power that comes with being in the world's reserve currency, but you can't be the world's reserve currency while also using that currency to impose your values upon the rest of the world. Eventually, the rest of the world is just going to say "that's fine, impose your values upon yourself and we will use something else"
It goes to show that the neomarxists who only look at anything through the lens of power are incorrect. Power can come from many different things, either from violence such as the barrel of a gun like what mao believed, or alternatively through service such as proper capitalistic pursuits where the only way that you can convince someone to give you more of your money is to provide something that they want at a price that they want to pay. Arguably, the greatest generation of Americans understood this deeply which is why rather than absolutely crush Germany and Japan after they lost world war ii, and they helped to rebuild those countries into something new. This soft power is something that China also makes use of, and it's a lot harder to cultivate and maintain, but if you do things right it can mean that you have a much larger power base than if you try to cultivate power through hard power such as violence or other forms of hard coercion.
I started adding cursive to my alphabet lessons with my little one a year and a bit ago. Have to admit, at first it was a bit tough trying to remember how to do some of the letters myself!
They kept on saying that cryptocurrency stuff was web 3.0, but I think the real web 3.0 is federation with ActivityPub.
One key part of the argument in my view is that unlike crypto stuff, federation actually keeps you on the web.
One key part of the argument in my view is that unlike crypto stuff, federation actually keeps you on the web.
I was in downtown Vancouver the other day, and as far as I can figure it's probably about as good as it gets as far as high density cities go, and I just wanted to get back to the bush.
Last year I kept on writing a news articles about how it was the hottest year ever, but last year had something very unique about it -- I went out for a walk with my son every single day I could, and at no point in the entire year was it too hot for us to go out for a walk. That's actually relatively unique, it was a cool summer.
Of course, weather is local and they're claiming climate is global, but I think it goes to show you have to be very careful about taking these people's claims at face value.
Of course, weather is local and they're claiming climate is global, but I think it goes to show you have to be very careful about taking these people's claims at face value.