Please post all off-topic comments for the week in this thread. They will not be posted in the main articles.
Open thread: week may 6 to may 12, 2018
07 Monday May 2018
Posted in Uncategorized
07 Monday May 2018
Posted in Uncategorized
Please post all off-topic comments for the week in this thread. They will not be posted in the main articles.
Pumpkin Person 
both sides assume that the amendment is relevant.
this is why i say lawyers are morons.
the correct ruling was…
DC stands, the 2d amendment has not meaning TODAY.
….because acts of Congress (not formal amendment procedures) can nullify amendments of the US Constitution, apparently.
that’s why both sides assume the amendment is relevant….
it’s pointless.
you’re retarded.
you said that the US Congress authorizing a standing army mooted the entire amendment.
that necessarily means an act of Congress other than the formal amendment procedures can nullify amendments to the bill of rights…
…which is against the constitution’s original intent as supreme law of the land, controlling the legislature’s actions and unaffected by them save those formal amendment procedures…
…and if original intent is the ONLY jurisprudence…then your argument must fail according to you.
you said that the US Congress authorizing a standing army mooted the entire amendment.
and then i said i was mistaken.
has no meaning today in this case if any.
ah, so ‘this Court, called upon with interpreting the constitution, decides that Congress has left the amendment devoid of meaning.’
i guess the Alien and Sedition acts mooted the first amendment, too
that the amendment is there means that it necessarily must have meaning.
the same concept explained in another context:
decides that Congress has left the amendment devoid of meaning
not congress fucktard. the technology of warfare.
I was unaware that the army could update its technology without specific authorization and funding from Congress.
wait a minute…waaaaait a minute…
The Congress shall have Power To …raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years….
of course, let’s just assume Congress had nothing to do with it.
now we’d be saying that the Executive branch could nullify amendments to the Constitution as well. more the merrier I suppose.
ah, I’m just kidding, JUST KIDDING…
let’s assume NO BRANCH of government has anything to do with it and just the mere change in technology is what does it….
so…then changes in society ALONE can alter constitutional amendments?
I guess you agree that activism isn’t such a big deal. Who knew!
wtf
https://youtu.be/-rdBqhwr3dA
https://youtu.be/uj2mhutaEGA
https://youtu.be/zzuy7hWakq0
https://youtu.be/ifqmN14qJp8
https://youtu.be/FGtk_eaVnxQ
Do you like any of these cat?
https://youtu.be/w3y2SDpIEhE?t=10m14s
Race, what do you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vszryFZf_MY
And how about this, you should talk to Sean like you did jared Taylor.
Phil, if youve ever had the need to litsen to RR´s voice, here
https://youtu.be/PO1k5b8RAU4?t=2m10s
whenever the original intent is equivocal the amendment or statute or whatever is BY DEFINITION IRRELEVANT.
the Constitution’s ‘original intent’ as supreme law of the land is definitely not equivocal.
to argue that any amendment is completely irrelevant on account of Congressional action therefore is to argue against original intent.
it simply is not done.
it’s an OBVIOUS point many people miss.
there are two problems with ubi.
1. most don’t need it but would get it anyway.
2. those who need it must be forbidden children.
3. a problem for afro but not for me, it would mean immigration would have to become much more selective and schengen would have to be abandoned.
scalia made an original intent argument too. so he lied about not being an original intent-er. sad!
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
but then he neglects again that a militia having no weapons other than guns would be no match for the US military AND that therefore i have a right to my own WMDs OR the amendment is meaningless.
it is impossible that the founders had WMDs in mind. therefore, their original intent is trapped in time. it has no application to today.
to put it another way, the purpose that the right to keep arms in one’s possession had in 1776 it cannot serve today unless arms is taken to include all the weapons available to the US military.
DRRR!
Lol the 1776 US army was no match for Britain….
Charlie was no match for the US….
The idea…as I already said, is to make tyranny costly. Not worth the effort.
Scalia didn’t lie, he just understands what original intent truly means.
Cultural myth making.
He majored in History, he gets it.
so he’s disagreeing with himself?
see what he said below.
the disarming of citizens that the framers feared has already come to pass.
i am prohibited from having my own WMD. this is taking my arms.
DUH!
Scalia is actually reaffirming the Court’s commitment to original intent in saying that developments in technology and armament can’t cause the Court to say the amendment is meaningless….for the obvious reason I’ve stated.
What’s funny is that I didn’t even read that part of the opinion. Really shows that there’s a there, there.
are you using google translate from hebrew?
I am speaking in a language few understand and rules the world, so I can see why you’d make that guess. But it’s not that language.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
why not nino? you DON’T explain. maybe ’cause only at the very end did you realize your whole argument was shit for this very reason.
The fact that one can point holes in a legal argument is meaningless. The law is art.
The best argument is the best narrative.
Every original intent argument regarding free speech as we now know it is filled with holes. Doesn’t matter…the narrative is powerful. So powerful that people believe it instantly as if it were the Gospel.
i don’t. am i not a people?
if a right to self-defense (from criminals, not from the federal govt) and the right to hunt was intended by the framers of the 2d amendment as scalia claims, then the heller decision was correct as it was a ban on handguns, BUT prohibition of all arms which have no purpose other than to kill lots of people in a short period of time can be banned. these are the arms used in all these massacres. for example, a law prohibiting semi-automatic guns of all kinds except for handguns, and limiting the magazines of those handguns would not violate the right to self-defense and the right to hunt.
BUT prohibition of all arms which have no purpose other than to kill lots of people in a short period of time is fine.
you’ve remarked several times about the ‘obviousness’ of the first and fourth amendment’s original intent and what you’ve meant by their original intent are understandings that are half a century old at best.
and the right to self-defense is defensible historically because the right to bear arms is a carryover from Britain and defined by Blackstone.
and yes, as the Heller opinion states, the right is not unlimited.
of course, that makes no sense. the literal language says “shall not be infringed.”
but the allowance for limitation is what makes the cultural myth more credible — it seems practical.
you know…..balancing the freedom of what the law can be with the fixed historical and cultural circumstances that brought us here. that should make sense to a Nazi.
so what nino claims is that the second amendment means:
A well regulated Militia and self-defense and hunting, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
but as stevens says…if that was the intention why doesn’t it say that?
many state constitutions of the time and suggestions for amendments from the states DID include this provision. was it forgotten or eliminated on purpose?
Wait….are you now advocating a textualist approach? I thought that was Jewish?
again…what the hell are you talking about?
is your native language hebrew or what?
if the framers left out the part which scalia claims is understood did they leave it out intentionally? answer: YES!
one would like the amendments to have everything good in them. but how can they? they can’t. scalia reads in the right to self-defense and hunting which was left out intentionally because he wants the constitution to say it not because it does.
is yours?
you’re over here trying to throw original meaning textualist NONSENSE in my face.
sad!
Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources… JEWISH!
The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. JEWISH!
The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. ONLY A RETARD OR A JEW WOULD DISAGREE!
and yet “if that was the intention why doesn’t it say that?” is THE textualist retort…
maybe breyer has the right decision. but i doubt it.
no. breyer’s dissent is super jewy. he claims the ban on new hand gun registrations doesn’t violate the right to self-defense with arms which scalia claims the 2d amendment gives. i’m pretty sure it’s illegal to carry around a shotgun in dc. but maybe not. what is breyer thinking? dc still allows me to have a samurai sword so my right to self-defense with arms has not been violated?
Breyer’s entire dissent is stupid. The standard for analyzing ‘infringement’ he advocates is a transparent ‘judges now as legislature.’ the problem with Breyer on this one is that he is too practically minded and doesn’t take the cultural myth seriously enough — look at how disingenuous his ‘agreement for the sake of argument’ regarding the right is…
LOSER!
Stevens engages the myth, which makes his dissent much better.
“The Court’s reliance on Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England is unpersuasive for the same reason as its reliance on the English Bill of Rights. Blackstone’s invocation of “ ‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,’ ” ante, at 20, and “ ‘the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence’ ” ibid., referred specifically to Article VII in the English Bill of Rights. The excerpt from Blackstone offered by the Court, therefore, is, like Article VII itself, of limited use in interpreting the very differently worded, and differently historically situated, Second Amendment .”
Bold move. Blackstone makes sense to invoke because the Founders were learned and trained in English Common law….and to say that the legal concepts in the Constitution are ‘very different’ is a stretch.
However, proclaiming ‘this is America, not Britain’ will always be strong…
Stevens is on a roll….
“What is important about Blackstone is the instruction he provided on reading the sort of text before us today. Blackstone described an interpretive approach that gave far more weight to preambles than the Court allows. Counseling that “[t]he fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable,” Blackstone explained that “[i]f words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus, the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament.” 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 59–60 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). In light of the Court’s invocation of Blackstone as “ ‘the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,’ ” ante, at 20 (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999) ), its disregard for his guidance on matters of interpretation is striking.”
So he hijacks the myth and makes a persuasive case for utilizing Blackstone for another purpose — his (and really the liberal) way of determining ‘intent,’ which allows him to bring facts to bear on the debate. and really it’s always facts that he likes….
” What is more, much of the evidence the Court offers is decidedly less clear than its discussion allows. The Court notes that “[b]lacks were routinely disarmed by Southern States after the Civil War. Those who opposed these injustices frequently stated that they infringed blacks’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” Ante, at 42. The Court hastily concludes that “[n]eedless to say, the claim was not that blacks were being prohibited from carrying arms in an organized state militia……
…..One particularly chilling account of Reconstruction-era Klan violence directed at a black militia member is recounted in the memoir of Louis F. Post, A “Carpetbagger” in South Carolina, 10 Journal of Negro History 10 (1925). Post describes the murder by local Klan members of Jim Williams, the captain of a “Negro militia company,” id., at 59, this way:
“[A] cavalcade of sixty cowardly white men, completely disguised with face masks and body gowns, rode up one night in March, 1871, to the house of Captain Williams … in the wood [they] hanged [and shot] him … [and on his body they] then pinned a slip of paper inscribed, as I remember it, with these grim words: ‘Jim Williams gone to his last muster.’ ” Id., at 61.
In light of this evidence, it is quite possible that at least some of the statements on which the Court relies actually did mean to refer to the disarmament of black militia members.”
What a master! Scalia tries to utilize the ‘let us not be racist’ trope and Stevens takes back the ball like a champion…
“The Court concludes its opinion by declaring that it is not the proper role of this Court to change the meaning of rights “enshrine[d]” in the Constitution. Ante, at 64. But the right the Court announces was not “enshrined” in the Second Amendment by the Framers; it is the product of today’s law-changing decision. The majority’s exegesis has utterly failed to establish that as a matter of text or history, “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” is “elevate[d] above all other interests” by the Second Amendment . Ante, at 64.
I do not know whether today’s decision will increase the labor of federal judges to the “breaking point” envisioned by Justice Cardozo, but it will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.”
The liberal making sure to wield the ‘judicial activism’ sword because it will hurt a self-proclaimed ‘originalist’ like Scalia’s credibility more.
Stevens had a really unique negative jurisprudence. IIRC I never saw him really say much of his own jurisprudence, he just seemed to engage the credibility of other justices and always took the fight to them on their jurisprudential turf.
proof that neither Stevens nor Scalia was unaware of muggy’s point, but both understood that it just could not be brought up in the framework.
A recent piece by Stevens:
“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century”
“strict constructionism” has been used as a synonym for originalism in the mass media yet it has nothing to do with it.
it isn’t clear that it means anything. it’s just another example of how dumb lawyers are.
for example “original intent” might mean that the original denotation is the only denotation, but what about the original intension?
this is how supposed ampliation is NOT activism.
original intent INCLUDES original intension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connotation
it’s a sliding scale for the degree of equity/fairness/personal taste a judge will allegedly admit into his ruling.
a strict constructionist = 0 equity. if the text says something stupid, then the judge will apply the law to achieve a stupid result.
textualism/original meaning = equity by way of opening up the text’s definition to whatever a person ‘at the time’ may have thought the words meant….
original intent would never mean that the ‘original denotation is the only denotation.’ original intent is attempting to ascertain the purpose of a law via utilizing the text of the law and other sources as a guideline…= even more equity….
original intent INCLUDES original intension.
doy.
mugabe wins!
Honest things, like honest men, do not have to explain themselves so openly. What must first be proved is worth little. Wherever authority still forms part of good bearing, where one does not give reasons but commands, the logician is a kind of buffoon: one laughs at him, one does not take him seriously
Scalia understood this better than perhaps any other justice.
Most of his dissents are revered because they allegedly poke holes in the Majority opinion well.
Not really! His dissents are revered because they are….FUNNY.
PGA TOUR’s dissent is hilarious.
mugabe found the correct ruling. there is no other.
the amendment did grant the individual the right to keep arms of any kind whatsoever (in 1789) in his personal possession so that he as a member of a militia might resist tyranny from the federal government.
the amendment does not and was not intended to grant a right to bear arms for self-defense against criminals or animals or to hunt.
the founders could not have intended that so many modern weapons be among the arms the individual has the right to keep.
millions with guns are no match for the much better equipped US military.
therefore the amendment can invalidate no law.
in the 18th century individuals and even merchants owned cannons….
so, I’m not sure why you’re foreclosing the possibility that the Founders would have been find with private nuclear submarines or whatever.
Blackstone states that the right comes from the right to self-preservation and one characterization of the right from him is “that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition or degree, and such as are allowed law.”
millions with guns are no match for the much better equipped US military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
wouldn’t have been fine.
it’s settled. Chinese electronics are dogshit.
while factually the notion of a numerically superior army with inferior weaponry having no chance against a smaller but force-multiplier-maxed-weaponry wielding army is false….
….what’s more important is that to accept such an argument…
…is bad…
…for business….
the cultural myth of America’s founding can’t tolerate it, which is why IT’S A LOSER.
i mean…do you even cultural space, bro?
“americans now have no chance against their government if it turns tyrannical”
so, I’m not sure why you’re foreclosing the possibility that the Founders would have been find with private nuclear submarines or whatever.
are you autistic?
is it autistic to point out the fact that the Founders were fine with armed merchant ships — vessels that in many cases were BETTER armed than the navy…?
so it’s entirely possible that they would not have cared about private citizens owning ‘heavy duty’ weaponry.
AND the pc thought police are almost 100% upper middle class in the american sense.
recall milo was chanted out of a bar by a group of self-described young socialists.
the bar was on the upper east side of manhattan.
ERWACH!
it’s all just drama…rich kids feeling superior…to other rich kids AND to poor kids.
Controversial alt-right media figurehead Milo Yiannopoulos was shouted out of Nomad bar Churchill Tavern on Sunday. Members of the Democratic Socialists of America chanted…
that address was: [redacted by pp, may 11, 2018]
so it’s really even worse. mid-town.
it’s not worse. it’s a great achievement. perhaps THE greatest achievement.
within the evil sinshitter that is ‘Civilization’ how can one bring a concept such as ‘respect for another human being as a human being, despite whatever reified appellation you attach to them’ into reality?
by tying that concept to status, of course. IIRC ‘virtue-signaling’ is the modern name.
no one at first really believes that any of these ‘other’-designated groups of people are truly human and it’s true, they only feign outrage and feign concern. it’s true!
for now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
by getting them to repeat the LIE and act out the LIE (from their perspective these people truly are not human so it is a LIE to them)…in time, it will become the truth.
quid pro quo for spreading ‘positive’ propaganda —- you gain status. this is the Savior of mankind. the ability to train ourselves to be better.
“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”
taken metaphorically, the Catholic Church really is impressive.
The Valladolid debate (1550–1551) was the first moral debate in European history to discuss the rights and treatment of a colonized people by colonizers….
The affair is considered one of the earliest examples of moral debates about colonialism, human rights of colonized peoples and international relations in history…
More importantly, the debate reflected a concern for morality and justice in 16th century Spain that only surfaced in other colonial powers centuries later….
Scalia’s decision is fine….I just said it was activist. because it is.
but it’s good because it’s in line with
a film from yet another Italian who knew America even better than she knew herself.
coincidence?
Pumpkin’s original views +20 IQ differences between certain races and so on, I disagreed with. Recently however, a month ago I believe, he made a statement that IQ differences do exist but are likely to be much smaller than most HBDers believe. I agree with this point, genetic differences in potential intelligence are likely to exist, but be very small [in IQ terms, though I don’t like IQ terms, 1-3 points].
There are definitely genetic differences between races, with Negroids being the most genetically distant human group. I don’t agree with RR and Afrosapiens that HBD [when applied to intelligence] flat out doesn’t exist. It likely does exist, even if said differences turn out to be microscopic in the end.
Meanwhile Philosopher believes Negroids are sub-human against all available evidence and Afrosapiens may even believe they are superior [against all available evidence].
I believe the genetic differences are 50% of the phenotypic differences in the U.S. but that doesn’t mean they’re small because differences in the U.S. are huge. For examples Ashkenazi Jews score 110 and dark skinned blacks score 80 in the U.S., a difference of 30 points, so even 50% of that is large. And the lowest scoring human groups don’t even live in the U.S. so gaps are potentially larger still.
Ashkenazi 105, Blacks 90? Possibly. Given Blacks in Sierra Leone supposedly score 91, they likely cap at 95 like they do in the UK [to my knowledge, at least according to SAT results].
What do you mean by a difference being 50% heritable? is it that 50% or the diiffrence will be 100% heritable when in equal environments? Or is “genetic difference” not “the heratibility of the difference” as Ryan faulk likes to say.
Fenoopy, if you got the 91 number from the global iq website, it cited the reasearch wrong. it actually has an avarage of 64 in the sample made by lynn (2006).
Afrosapiens disputed the african estimates, and used Witchers et al to estimate their avarage to be around 83+.
Evidence:https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/west-africas-mean-iq-lets-talk-about-the-numbers-by-afrosapiens/
Meanwhile Philosopher believes Negroids are sub-human against all available evidence and Afrosapiens may even believe they are superior
In terms of genetic fitness, yes it’s not even questionable that we have fewer deleterious variants and more heterozygosity.
So the more polygenic a phenotype is, the more it’s affected by whole genome mutational load, the larger the African advantage.
Since that’s how all behavioral traits are said to be genetically mediated, Occam’s razor tells us we have a genetic advantage in this domain.
The burden is on contradictors to establish that total genetic load is irrelevant to the expression of behavioral phenotypes.
In terms of genetic fitness, yes it’s not even questionable that we have fewer deleterious variants and more heterozygosity.
EPPUR SI 100 WOMEN IN 10 YEARS.
SAD!
but afro just made up the above anyway.
black africa has greater genetic diversity BUT not greater homogeneity. a ghanaian is MORE different from a somali than a frenchman is from a russian. (pssst afro is NOT a frenchman.)
black africans do NOT have fewer deleterious alleles. afro just made that up.
Cochran claims they have more
The Out-of-Africa (OOA) dispersal ∼50,000 y ago is characterized by a series of founder events as modern humans expanded into multiple continents. Population genetics theory predicts an increase of mutational load in populations undergoing serial founder effects during range expansions. To test this hypothesis, we have sequenced full genomes and high-coverage exomes from seven geographically divergent human populations from Namibia, Congo, Algeria, Pakistan, Cambodia, Siberia, and Mexico. We find that individual genomes vary modestly in the overall number of predicted deleterious alleles. We show via spatially explicit simulations that the observed distribution of deleterious allele frequencies is consistent with the OOA dispersal, particularly under a model where deleterious mutations are recessive. We conclude that there is a strong signal of purifying selection at conserved genomic positions within Africa, but that many predicted deleterious mutations have evolved as if they were neutral during the expansion out of Africa. Under a model where selection is inversely related to dominance, we show that OOA populations are likely to have a higher mutation load due to increased allele frequencies of nearly neutral variants that are recessive or partially recessive.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/E440
when afro refers to “we” i wonder of he’s referring to black africans or to frenhcmen…
NOT!
afro needs to be deported OBVIOUSLY.
Yes, I am genetically African, not French nor Haitian.
Cochran claims they have more
So cockring has falsified the theory of evolution since the theory predicts that a historically larger population that undergoes fewer bottlenecks has less genetic load.
You were the one that called them ‘degenerate retards’ not me.
AHAHAHAHA
RR doesnt nescesarily belive that Afros are equal to other groups.
” Pointing out huge flaws in tests does not mean that you’re a ‘blank slatist’ (whatever that is; it’s a strawman for people who don’t bow down to the IQ alter). Pointing out flaws in IQ tests does not mean that you believe that everyone and every group is ‘equal’ in a psychological and mental sense.”-Race Realist.
[redacted by pp, may 11, 2018] accept my comment on saudi arabia, you only allowed one third to be read by the others!
Found the comment you’re referring to and released it
🙂
Good job!
And how do you post pictures on this website?
Overall, the supplies and equipment of communist units were adequate, and their infantry small-arms were a match for those of their opponents.[2] Contrary to some popular impressions of simple peasant farmers armed with pitchforks and machetes, the VC/NVA main units (as well as the local forces in the latter years) were well equipped with modern arms either from Soviet bloc or Chinese sources.
Ambushes. Iraqi insurgents have frequently launched ambushes of military convoys and patrols, using AK-47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.
Any fully automatic made after 1986 is prohibited for civilian ownership in the United States.
mugabe’s ruling is THE answer.
in some cases there is not an answer which is THE answer.
but heller vs DC is not such a case.
mugabe is an example of how the best minds do NOT go into law, pace the great sicilian jurist nino.
he laughed hysterically.
It is THE answer that no one would listen to, yes. It’s an answer that everyone was well aware of but for whatever reason ignored.
If aesthetics don’t lie….
….then this alone is fatal to THE answer.
mugabe: adjusts glasses well, I have THE answer. Quite simple really, technology has…
things dogs do NOT want or can’t even conceive of:
1. polling companies or prostitution
2. fame
3. an ocean front estate in east hampton or malibu.
swank is correct that the higher the class the longer the life expectancy.
no doubt.
BUT the difference is SO small that almost all of the world’s longest lived people are and were POOR relative-ly.
eating dog meat is NOT genetically superior people behavior.
https://www.yarn.co/yarn-clip/55385015-f886-4075-9472-36e0bfe26143
things dogs do NOT want or can’t even conceive of
1. saying ‘hi’ without sniffing another’s asshole
2. non-coprophagic eating habits.
3. permanent heterosexual preferences
another great counter-example of HBD is…
argentina and uruguay have no mafia.
this despite their having so many italian immigrants that their spanish is spanish with an italian accent.
“In 1924 the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted a statute authorizing the compulsory sterilization of the intellectually disabled for the purpose of eugenics. This 1924 statute was closely based on Laughlin’s model.[Looking to determine if the new law would pass a legal challenge, on September 10, 1924 Dr. Albert Sidney Priddy, superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, filed a petition to his Board of Directors to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old patient at his institution who he claimed had a mental age of 9. Priddy maintained that Buck represented a genetic threat to society. According to Priddy, Buck’s 52-year-old mother possessed a mental age of 8 and had a record of prostitution and immorality. She had three children without good knowledge of their parentage. Carrie, one of these children, had been adopted and attended school for five years, reaching the level of sixth grade. However, according to Priddy, she had eventually proved to be “incorrigible” and eventually gave birth to an illegitimate child. Her adopted family had committed her to the State Colony as “feeble-minded”, no longer feeling capable of caring for her. It was later discovered that Carrie’s pregnancy was not caused by any “immorality” on her own part. In the summer of 1923, while her adoptive mother was away “on account of some illness,” her adoptive mother’s nephew raped Carrie, and Carrie’s later commitment has been seen as an attempt by the family to save their reputation.
…
On May 2, 1927, in an 8–1 decision, the Court accepted that she, her mother and her daughter were “feeble-minded” and “promiscuous,” and that it was in the state’s interest to have her sterilized
…
The sole dissenter in the court, Justice Pierce Butler, a devout Catholic, did not write a dissenting opinion.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job. – Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
explain to me why compulsory sterilization of the feeble minded is unconstitutional swank.
i dare you.
that buck was not in fact feeble minded or was not feeble minded for genetic or organic reasons is irrelevant.
three generations of imbeciles IS enough!
i would’ve been one of the 8. convince me the law is unconstitutional.
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.
Holmes concluded his argument by declaring that “Three generations of imbeciles are enough”
that buck was not in fact feeble minded or was not feeble minded for genetic or organic reasons is irrelevant.
oh really, when the definitions are as crystallized as “[p]ersonality disorders (PD) are a class of mental disorders characterized by enduring maladaptive patterns of behavior, cognition, and inner experience, exhibited across many contexts and deviating from those accepted by the individual’s culture.” given that that’s the current dx scheme, i’m sure they were much more refined a century ago….
muggy worships psychiatrists.
i don’t believe psychiatrists or psychiatry are worthy of worship.
convince me the law is unconstitutional.
anyone who has to be ‘convinced’ is a retard.
why do you think Butler did as he did?
but it’s this simple:
if you believe the NSA can’t read your e-mails and that the government can’t censure you for free speech against it or free speech the people hate, then indeed, you must necessarily agree that the government cannot sterilize its citizens under circumstances like those in Buck.
‘i hate activism’ = i hate [n word redacted by pp, may 12, 2018]/mentally-unfit-according-to-my-psychiatrist-overlords/[k word redacted by pp, may 12, 2018]/[f word redacted by pp, may 12, 2018]
It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime,
as i have stated….these people muggy reveres WILL EAT HIM ALIVE AND LAUGH and muggy will LAUGH ALONG WITH THEM.
his statement is. a. LIE.
carrie buck was RAPED. the State’s Acts are against HER. so what is he talking about?
the death penalty for the unborn with a standard much lower than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ stated OPENLY.
muggy believes that a full grown human being ought to be afforded due process when accused of a crime and a crime has to have actually occurred and whatnot….
…but when muggy’s unknown knowns are acting up, or fingered by a wordsmith such as Holmes, he will gladly help set up precedent for Minority Report.
‘convince me.’
lol.
of course i could never serve master as a supreme court justice. i’d be impeached immediately.
my opinions would be 1/10th the length of opinions today and i’d refer to the other side as “fucktards” and “pantywatses” and “popolaters” and “jews” etc.
definite impeachment.
bower vs hardwick was hilarious…
this court cannot believe that the framers intended that the fundamental right of anal sex was a thing.
and they were more right than they knew.
hardwick died from AIDS in 1991.
true.
only Scalia could get away with insulting his fellow justices.
Next the Court makes the claim, again unsupported by any citations, that “[l]aws prohibiting sodomy do not seem to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private.” Ante, at 8. The key qualifier here is “acting in private”–since the Court admits that sodomy laws were enforced against consenting adults (although the Court contends that prosecutions were “infrequent,” ante, at 9). I do not know what “acting in private” means; surely consensual sodomy, like heterosexual intercourse, is rarely performed on stage.
To be fair to Scalia, even though Im not particulary pro sodomy laws or against, it would strike me as obvious the founders were anti-sodomy. Whether they would have proceeded to make a legal framework against it I don’t know. I understand sodomy laws came codified much later. Beforehand it was more or less extreme taboo anyway.
The jews make a somewhat fair case that the traditions and customs of people living 300 years ago are not relevant.
But then they start using that reasonable argument to argue the country should have no borders or everyone needs 24/7 supercomputer surveillance on personal comms.
Sodomy a strange area of law.
“n 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy.[2] Jefferson intended this to be a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time, which prescribed death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy. It was rejected by the Virginia legislature.”
^^^
People think the founders were basically modern liberals thanks to jewish media coverage.
Most of these guys are to the right of me on social issues. And most people would call me extreme right on social issues.
Analyzing the opinions of people 200 years ago relative to one’s exact opinions today is beyond retarded.
The proper inquiry is….given the ideology of the time, were the Founders liberal or no. The answer is…yes, very.
So then it is reasonable to assume that given modern ideology, they would be liberal as well.
if kitty genovese had had a handgun she’d likely be alive today.
interesting name. i’m surprised all 38 witnesses weren’t soon killed afterwards.
the guy who killed her was black. his motivation was “i just wanted to kill a woman.”
the voters can decide.
the 2d amendment is irrelevant.
“The three-fifths clause was part of a series of compromises enacted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The most notable other clauses prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories and ended U.S. participation in the international slave trade in 1807. These compromises reflected Virginia Constitutional Convention delegate (and future U.S. President) James Madison’s observation that “…the States were divided into different interests not by their…size…but principally from their having or not having slaves.”
When Constitutional Convention delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed that congressional representation be based on the total number of inhabitants of a state, delegate Charles Pinckney of South Carolina agreed saying “blacks ought to stand on an equality with whites….” Pinckney’s statement was disingenuous since at the time he knew most blacks were enslaved in his state and none, slave or free, could vote or were considered equals of white South Carolinians. Other delegates including most notably Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania argued that he could not support equal representation because he “could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade…by allowing them [Southern states] a representation for their negroes.”
IMO the ‘founders’ probably did disagree in latitude about how blacks should be treated.
I bet every single one of them holds the same opinions as I do as to what type of behaviours, aptitudes and desires blacks generally have in life.
I would be shocked if Jefferson, Paine or Voltaire – who were considered extremely liberal for their time saw blacks truly the exact same way they saw whites.
Of course, today blacks in Zimbawbe and South Africa don’t see whites the same as blacks.
This is called tribalism and is a natural property of all humans, especially non domesticated livestock humans.
The problem jews have with tribalism and I suppose many of you who download your value from our high IQ psychopath friends is that it is often the case tribal feelings actually make one make judgements more in line with reality, empirical reality, than acting ‘morally’ according to how you learned on the Disney channel.
Its not the issue, in terms of normative judgement that jews disagree with. Its the fact whites tend to match their response to the behaviours seen that jews disagree with.
This is why the largest population of white collar criminals in america despise ‘racism’.
It stops a detective from profiling.
This is called tribalism and is a natural property of all humans, especially non domesticated livestock humans.
the natural property of all humans is to look out for other humans.
‘Grossman’s first book, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society is an analysis of the physiological processes involved with killing another human being. In it, he reveals evidence that most people have a phobia-level response to violence, and that soldiers need to be specifically trained to kill. In addition, he details the physical effects that violent stresses produce on humans, ranging from tunnel vision, changes in sonic perception, and post-traumatic stress disorder.’
what you’re talking about people only believe in because of fear, Ronnie.
unless you can show me a gene responsible for your specific version of tribalism.
to be fair, many people have attacked Grossman’s theory:
‘Grossman’s theory, based on the World War II research of S.L.A. Marshall, is that most of the population deeply resists killing another human. Some veterans and historians have cast doubt on Marshall’s research methodology.[11] Professor Roger J. Spiller (Deputy Director of the Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College) argues in his 1988 article, “S.L.A. Marshall and the Ratio of Fire” (RUSI Journal, Winter 1988, pages 63–71), that Marshall had not actually conducted the research upon which he based his ratio-of-fire theory. “The ‘systematic collection of data’ appears to have been an invention.”[12] This revelation has called into question the authenticity of some of Marshall’s other books and has lent academic weight to doubts about his integrity that had been raised in military circles even decades earlier.[13]
As a result of Marshall’s work, modern military training was modified to attempt to override this instinct, by:
using man-shaped targets instead of bullseye targets in marksmanship practice
practicing and drilling how soldiers would actually fight
dispersing responsibility for the killing throughout the group
displacing responsibility for the killing onto an authority figure, i.e., the commanding officer and the military hierarchy (See the Milgram experiment)
By the time of the United States involvement in the Vietnam War, says Grossman, 90% of U.S. soldiers would fire their weapons at other people.’
Phil believes himself to have a gift of seeing the truth.
can he see the truth of this?
no, he can’t
he’s too scared.
It stops a detective from profiling.
detectives profile all the time. you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“Grossman”
Jew. That is all.
pill is over swank’s head.
paraphrase: jews hat “racism”, because they don’t want to be caught jewing.
I don’t know if sodomy laws are constitutional or not. Im not going to bother reading the history or decisions and that.
I understand why it was banned more to send a message about values.
I don’t have anything against homosexuals. But i’d make a few observations:
1. Its obvious something is causing more homosexuals to come into being than before. I suspect this is the result of feminised environments and K selection.
2. Homosexuals often do have interests in adolescent boys although they don’t always admit it.
3. Most paedophiles are homosexual men. That tells you something.
Its actually a complicated debate demarcating when values are antiquated and deserve to be removed from law and media and schools etc. These are the culture wars.
If you want to be objective about it, I have no idea whether sodomy is ‘moral’ or not. You would have to differentiate between ethics and morality. Its a bit like a person cheating on their wife to me. Its not to be condoned, but I wouldn’t stone anyone for doing it.
Me responding to you on homosexuality:
1. People can hide their sexualities. I also agre with santo on homosexuality, its a spectrum, most “homos” are probably bisexual. Maybe full homosexuality is a mutation from being a very bisexual and disliking women more than usual. Being bisexual makes you reproduce with the opposite sex.
2. Heteros also often do to.
3. Mental illnesses correlate, i think there might be some latent variable at play. Also, most homos are not pedos.
You should distinguish paedophile by opportunity wich is 10% of all men – straight or not – and paedophile by preference – then I would say it is 0.1% of straight and 1.5% of gays – or 15 times more. In the middle, preference for 13-20, would be 10% of straight and 50% of gays, or 5 times more.
If gay are 3%, you can say that
1) more kids annoyed are mostly by straight people – gather, uncle, grandfather, teacher, coach, priest, managers –
2) but gays are extremely over-represented among those. That’s why they represent half of paedophiles. That’s why in many languages, gays are called paedos (like in French)
I don’t know why it is the case
Funnily enough, its ok to look at law from a postmodern perspective. IMO postmodernism basically is a conspiracy theory that whites can’t make observations about reality without being racist. I dunno. Maybe its more than this. But this seems an adequate distillation for our purposes.
This perspective is actually correct when viewing the law. It is a white people social construction meant to bound others to the white way of life.
And why would it be anything else in a white founded and majority nation?
The idea America was founded as some sort of gender neutral race neutral utopia of civil rights is a fraud.
It is this argument that is a [redacted by pp, may 12, 2018]
In the end I keep saying it, the biggest debate of the 21st century will be whether its ok for whites to be tribal.
Once they win the right to be from themselves, whites can bring back civilisation to the world at large as they had done before.
This is what is historically called ‘The White Man’s Burden’.
Its a real phenomenon. Whites do do most of the innovation and thinking for humanitys breakthroughs for whatever reason.
the last sentence is wrong, jews are the intellectuals, even in STEM. And you are already spreading your customs around the world, just that they are more jewish.
The reason I keep mentioning Bill Gates is simple and can be summarised in 3 propositions:
1. Africa’s population growth is a catastrophe for the world at large ecologically and culturally.
2. Bill Gates should direct his philanthropy to much more dire problems in the world.
3. Bill Gates is creating a problem for other humans by extending the Malthusian frontier out for Africans.
4. These problems will require donors with equal or more financial heft to donate funds to fix these problems eventually.
Bill Gates reminds me the story of Dr Frankenstein. Even the most autistic person in the universe should be now have realised why Africa is as murky and inhospitable to civilisation as it is.
You don’t know what you’re talking about; Africa’s birth rate will decline as their health increases. You don’t typically see black women in America having 4 babies each.
South africa and botswana are better examples, as they are homogenously black.
“Africa’s birth rate will decline as their health increases.”
No it hasn’t.
look up the countries i mentioned.
https://www.google.se/search?q=south+africa+fertility+rate&oq=south+af&aqs=chrome.2.0j69i57j69i59j35i39l2j0.2526j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.se/search?q=botswana+fertility+rate&oq=botsweana+fertil&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.3623j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Look up african american fertility rates.
Chomsky says a lot of nonsense sometimes. I was listening to him talk about the idea that HBD might exist and he said ‘there is no evidence it is a real phenomenon’.
I find it extremely hard to believe someone with VIQ that high can’t see why most of the people he works with in linguistics are not east asians or blacks and probably never will be in our lifetimes.
The question becomes – is he saying that because he truly believes in cultural marxism – i.e. all men are equal and the exact same. Or because he desires to perpetuate this scientific sham for his ethnic genetic interests.
In any case, people like Hitchens, Chomsky and Peterson disavowing HBD make everything else they say laced with doubt. Because there are many other topics that are taboo, but true.
Peterson have citet Linda gottfriedson and was on tara mcarthy´s show. Litsen to him talk about jews, he belives in HBD, his views on IQ demands it. Whether or not 80% of subsaharan africans are retarded is something i dont think he is certain of.
I know HDB exists to an extent, but I also believe that the differences aren’t large enough to matter. We all share this planet. Marxism is the only reasonable way for one world government. [rest of comment redacted by pp, may 12, 2018]
The rest of the comment that PP redacted was basically saying tribalism is bad.
Peterson and that guy Saul Kripke have very autistic voices. Gates has the same voice.
In peterson’s case, I genuinely don’t think he has any intuition about what the hell hes saying. He seems to have just stumbled onto this massive black hole are in psychology literature around gender, race, and intelligence.
He is a lot more like Damore from Google than David Duke.
If you actually bother to listen to David Duke, everything he says is true about reality. It is for this precise reason, most of you are not emotionally able to condone it due to psychological conditioning from our((friends))).
I can’t even say [n word redacted by pp, may 12, 2018] in the mirror without flinching.
PP do you think that within ethnicity, larger headed people are more changeble or atleast can be more easily influenced than smaller brain people can. Ofcourse by large brain i mean brain size after taking into account body size.
I have noticed this among my ethnicity. Is it because they have more innate confidence in their capability that they can achieve more difficult stuff to begin with, that when people encourage them to achieve something they are more likely to do it?. Or larger brains means more connections but weaker. White matter spread too thin?. And weaker connections means more modifiable connections?
In the end you will all see Im right about everything and Im not happy about it. This is because I was conditioned from a young age to reject reality by Master like all of you.
Not many people can unwind it. There’ll always be a vertigo feeling.
It reminds me of the north korean refugees who escape to the West and need to be ‘deprogrammed’ from the KIm dynasty’s mind control.
It never occurs to most Westerners they need to be deprogrammed in the same way from Robert Rubin and co.
How do you think africa will develop?
Likely in the same way Kenya is doing, through exchange of raw resources for infrastructure with China. Ethiopia is also building a large dam to provide massive electricity.
It won’t.
Kripke thinks philosophy is knowing how to say something the exact correct way.
Of all the academic disiplines distorted by jews, philosophy is by far the most cartoony carnival mirror abomination because they have changed to nature of study completely.
As we all know, if people were to really ask what morality is or how Master controls the livestock pen, people would secure some degree of relative freedom from Master. And that is intolerable to Master.
How does morality work?
Freedom =
(a) Freedom from Master
(b) Freedom from want and animal compulsions
(c) Freedom from social obligations/rules
(d) Freedom to enact the maximum amount of free will however one chooses to define it in himself
I don’t know the answer personally.
You’re never free. Accomplish your goals, most you can do. Perhaps you mean freedom of mind.
Swank doesn’t get it. Plessy was a good decision because it is in line with the raison d’etre of america.
There is a reason native americans were forced onto reservations and thrown off the land to make room, physically and socially for white settlers.
You might think these are ‘immoral’, and you might be right/wrong, I don’t know personally. This question is too difficult to answer. You then basically have to make a case America shouldnt be white dominated really, and then you fall into a lot problems philosophically because a non white dominated country would’nt have an independent judiciary….etc
You can’t make an argument Plessy is not in line with how America was made. The 14th amendment happened after the Civil War. The slavers lost, but nobody was fighting for integration. Lincoln wanted to send blacks to back to Africa. Even today native americans are a sad divorced aspect of american society.
yes, i understand that idiots like Phil blindly hate other human beings.
and You might think these are ‘immoral’, and you might be right/wrong, I don’t know personally. This question is too difficult to answer. You then basically have to make a case America shouldnt be white dominated really, and then you fall into a lot problems philosophically because a non white dominated country would’nt have an independent judiciary….etc
….
Phil does not know that slavery, genocide, and coerced social inferiority are wrong.
Phil does not know that appellations like ‘white’ take second-place to truths such as ‘human.’
Phil does not understand that an original sin like slavery and native american genocide require recompense — whether this can only take place over many generations is irrelevant.
because he is a girly man.
he has no strength to change his personal world for the better and so retreats into ‘philosophies’ that desperately justify the world as/is.
“original sin like slavery ”
^^JEW.
Im not kidding only a jew would say that phrase.
All these perplexities develope more and more the
dreadful fruitfulness of the original sin of the African trade. – James ‘SuperJew’ Madison.
retard.
madison has been dead for 182 years.
The jews are right – America is founded on racism.
America wouldn’t have been a successful country if it wasn’t.
In the same way Singapore wouldn’t be successful if it wasn’t run by the Chinese instead of the Malays and Tamils.
I have just head an interview of the very interesting Ronan Farrow. I remember suggesting PP to guess his IQ before he became famous for outing heterexual male Jewish predators. From listening him, I believe he is 125-130. Wich is astonishing low considering he graduated with an almost perfect gpa from Bars at 15 yo, was admitted to Yale JD at 16yo (the most elite law school) and his a Rhode Scholar and his career as a journalist is brilliant.
He was dating a Jewish guy Jon Lovett (quite the opposite from him in his facial traits) who is a math undergraduate, who published a math article in a peer review, who was a stand up comedian in NY, and then worked for Obama as a speech writer. So I listened to 2 Lovett speeches and I believe he is in the 140-145 IQ despite a curriculum less impressive than Farrow.
I never did this kind of game before reading this blog . And I think the direct evaluation of IQ just by listening is a very disturbing skill. I have had 5 ocasions to check I was doing this quite accurately but the dream would have been to have a file with co-workers IQ and learn by induction to fine tune my guesses …
What IQ would you estimate just based on his accomplishments before you had listened to him?
What weights would you attach to your 2 estimates?
I gave a 100% weight to my estimate for each one and 0% to their life history, but I can’t be sure that what I knew about them wouldn’t influence me. But I know my « intuitive » (brain to brain) approach is fairly independent because based on university curriculum Ronan would have been far ahead of the other (I am not impressed by a math publication).
Then I have no idea if this exercise is any good because on one part I guess correctly for several people but on the other part I overestimate some famous people IQ (Ann Coulter, O’Reilly, Behar or Joy Reid), mainly because I like very adamant people ….
So you shouldn’t give to much credit to my guess. If Pumpkin or someone was able to find data about them (or ask them) , then it would be interesting to see how wrong/right I were.
I don’t understand why pumpkin doesn’t ring up the celebrities he profiles and ask them their IQ to see if he is correct. He will never know for sure otherwise. This is a major failing of pumpkins approach in my opinion.
“I don’t understand why pumpkin doesn’t ring up the celebrities he profiles and ask them their IQ to see if he is correct. He will never know for sure otherwise. This is a major failing of pumpkins approach in my opinion.”
It would be really cool if someone did this to validate his method.
Bruno,
What I meant is that you got one estimate from Ronan’s life history (say 145) and another from just hearing him speak (127).
If you had to make a final estimate, would you simply take the mean of those 2 or would you give the 2 estimates different weights?
I don’t understand why pumpkin doesn’t ring up the celebrities he profiles and ask them their IQ to see if he is correct. He will never know for sure otherwise. This is a major failing of pumpkins approach in my opinion.
—>
My girlfriend say I am exactly Sheldon in Big Bang theory since we have discovered this serie (a bit stupid) , but I believe that contrary to Sheldon I understand humour and sarcasm, you little devil
In certain aspect, I am weirder than Sheldon, who benefits from perfect visual imagery. In one episode, they meet Penny at her work place. As I never thought they could bother her at her work, I was wondering why the screenwriter invented a second penny, looking similar to the first one, and having interactions with them. It’s only when I saw Penny in her work attire at her home and making references to the conversations from the restaurant, that I realized they were the same person … it didn’t astonished my girlfriend who told me that I often multiply people’s persona .
PP, do you think driving on the left or right side of the road also stimulates different brain regions among populations.
i have no doubt that sterilization for a family history of “mental illness” or “familial retardation” would not even get close to passing the due process clause and such a case would once and for all show psychiatry and psychology for what they are, pseudosciences.
but i also see nothing wrong or unconstitutional in sterilizing people with genetic mental retardation who are incontinent.
the buck case has never been overturned and has been cited since.
So then you see nothing wrong with executing someone for crimes or acts they never committed. Good to know.
Roe v. Wade is probably the current maximum extent of permissible eugenics.
Buck has never been explicitly overturned, but laws for sterilizing criminals have been invalidated by SCOTUS….suggesting that the primary holding of Buck is no longer good law. And it wasn’t good law , in the true sense of the word, then, either.
If someone is retarded and incontinent…..how are they consenting to sex, muggy?
Who cares! They should be punished.
So then you see nothing wrong with executing someone for crimes or acts they never committed.
AS I SAID this is OBVIOUSLY a violation of the 5th and 14th amendments. BUT this is the ONLY sense that “substantive due process” may have.
AND as i said strict constructionism is jewish and scalia is a moron. i thought otherwise until you schooled me.
you don’t know what incontinent means.
3. lacking in moderation or self-control, especially of sexual desire.
I know what retarded means….and there are serious doubts about whether someone who is retarded in the sense you refer to can consent to sex.
…
Sterilizing someone based on what their children may or may not do = the thing you say obviously violates the constitution. You can only maintain that it is constitutional in the context of sterilization because of bias.
It’s not an accident that most everyone you quote as a great example of jurisprudence is an evil fucktard.
But another difference is that I never was duped by Scalia. I knew him as he was before I even left HS.
I would never even think to quote a high ranking government official as a credible source on anything speaking to a limitation of power. That in and of itself is STUPID and obviously so.
Genetic conditions. Sometimes disability is caused by abnormal genes inherited from parents, errors when genes combine, or other reasons. The most prevalent genetic conditions include Down syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, Fragile X syndrome (common among boys), neurofibromatosis, congenital hypothyroidism, Williams syndrome, phenylketonuria (PKU), and Prader–Willi syndrome. Other genetic conditions include Phelan-McDermid syndrome (22q13del), Mowat–Wilson syndrome, genetic ciliopathy,[12] and Siderius type X-linked intellectual disability (OMIM 300263) as caused by mutations in the PHF8 gene (OMIM 300560).[13][14] In the rarest of cases, abnormalities with the X or Y chromosome may also cause disability. 48, XXXX and 49, XXXXX syndrome affect a small number of girls worldwide, while boys may be affected by 49, XXXXY, or 49, XYYYY. 47, XYY is not associated with significantly lowered IQ though affected individuals may have slightly lower IQs than non-affected siblings on average.[15][16]
you sound like a jewish woman on the rag swank.
i quoted whoever i found. if there were none, i’d still be 100% original intent.
and more, i regard people like yourself as EVIL.
You most definitely are not 100% original intent if you believe the current law on free speech is correct.
You also by your own words favor judicial activism based on social change.
Seeing as how what you really think versus what you state you think thus far have turned out to be the opposites, I agree with your stated thoughts on me.
You most definitely are not 100% original intent if you believe the current law on free speech is correct. FALSE!
You also by your own words favor judicial activism based on social change. FALSE!
Seeing as how what you really think versus what you state you think thus far have turned out to be the opposites FALSE!, I agree with your stated thoughts on me. AGREEING WITH MUGABE IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM.
if swank ever got an A at a top 14 law school it was either because he was black or because lawyers are morons. if he’d been smarter he’d’ve made an F.
There doesn’t seem to be a reason for the law to exist to Swank other than its something that just falls out of the sky and needs to be manipulated to achieve certain outcomes.
But we have seen Swank has some a priori beliefs about human nature – i.e. cultural marxism – all men are inherently equal.
Thats fine. But in my opinion the law in the non-bannana republic country or monarchy should exist to maximise justice as a public good. If you say native americans and blacks deserve reperations like you said above, then you have profound difficulties in understanding the intent of the law which, funnily enough, I even agreed with Hertzl and Foucault et al – that it is a white persons code of conduct.
The law as we conceive it doesn’t really exist in non-white countries. It therefore stands to reason, that if whites being mean to native americans and blacks is unjust, the situation where jews/blacks/native americans or whoever else assumes control would render much LESS JUSTICE as we have seen in non-white societies of amerindian, jewish and bantu descent.
Justice doesn’t exist abstractly. It exists as a reflection of its foundation. This is why original intent is not play doh. You can’t just take it to mean anything you want because the law wouldn’t even have existed, and in my opinion, continue to exist, if it becomes ‘non-racist’ or ‘non suited to white people’.
Q Why is Harvard presitgious?
Corollary – harvard would not be prestigious if it raised its entry criteria 100% but only admitted non-whites/asians.
HARVARD IS NOT A UNIVERSITY SWANKY. ITS A SOCIAL SIGNIFIER. IT STANDS OR FALLS ON ITS ‘WHITENESS’. Indians don’t go to China to study for a reason.
The postmodernists are right that these things like law, constitutions, schooling, jobs and social groups and that are ‘artificial’.
What they completely don’t understand is that the value these things ‘give’ or provide are inherently a characteristic of the people that created them.
Therefore law doesn’t exist if you say the the people that founded it and continue it are ‘wrong’. It doesn’t even make sense what you’re saying if you think about it.
What is ‘law’?
Afro and Swank basically believe its a tool. Which I AGREE WITH. But it was a tool designed for a certain use. And its obvious the creator of the tool designed it for his own use in mind. Not for it to ‘fall out of the sky’ and serve some random person at the bus stop that picked it up.
You can’t get an A based on race….grading is anonymous. But yes, I received several. Obviously through my Mafia connects.
Muggy is now lying or maybe he has forgotten that he believes technological change can alter an amendment and that modern free speech is 100% not original intent.
Phil….while mostly wrong, has almost hit the point.
I agree that legitimacy in many instances requires certain fictions to be upheld….such as the Founders not being wrong, which is why most every interpretation of the constitution grounds itself on original intent, regardless of what the factual original intent was.
And this is precisely the reason original intent MUST be utilized like play doh.
Again, this isn’t up for debate . you’re both just wrong about how the world works.
Even if exams are anonymous, profs should be able to recognize the verbal style of their students from non-anonymous essays and class discussions
And profs have the discretion to raise your grade after exams
Mafia connections got the soprano girl into a great college 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF-b3xl8daQ&app=desktop
Yes pumpkin they get to know the verbal styles of the often 50+ students in s class….lol
And that your retort comes from a tv show says it all.
Oh forgive them Father they know not what they do.
And most law school classes don’t have non-anon essays. Lol.
then you’re proof that lawyers are dumb.
‘philosophies’ that desperately justify the world as/is…
Again, this isn’t up for debate . you’re both just wrong about how the world works.
SWANK CONTRADICTS HERSELF AGAIN. COME BACK AFTER YOUR PERIOD IS OVER SWANK AND YOU’VE LEARNED TO READ ENGLISH.
the Founders not being wrong WHETHER THEY WERE RIGHT OR WRONG IS 100% IRRELEVANT TO DETERMINING THEIR INTENT.
BOTH PILL AND I HAVE SAID THAT ORIGINAL INTENT IS EXPLICITLY NOT FOLLOWED BY JUDGES AND THAT THIS IS BECAUSE THOSE JUDGES ARE BAD PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
There is no contradiction.
The law is not static. Law is constantly being created. There is no such factual thing as an original intent and to think there is is stupid.
It only exists as a rhetorical device to justify more change.
Muggy believes in fairy tales. Because he’s a fairy.
Your credibility on what is and is not smart disintegrated with the Ed Meese quote.
also lol at characterizing basic humanism as ‘cultural marxism.’
it slowly started off by homosexuality becoming acceptable, now its starting to justify pedophilia, and eventually will lead to accepting beastiality and necrophilia in the future. America, europe, australia and the whole world is doomed. [C]ultural marxism is the best weapon the jew has ever used so far, after realizing communism will not win.
—YouTube commenter[
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
not that Rational Wiki is that great….but that’s a very funny-because-it’s-true.
Law is constantly being created.
only theoretically under common law and stare decisis which may be ignored willy nilly. under civil law law is created only by legislatures. interpretation by regulators and judges may or may not be authoritative but it isn’t new law, it’s interpretation.
the constitution is not constantly being created except by POWER MAD jews.
It only exists as a rhetorical device to justify more change. OBVIOUSLY FALSE TO ALL NON RETARDS, BUT FOR SOME EVIL INTENT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IT REALLY REALLY BADLY.
There is no such factual thing as an original intent THEN THERE IS NO SUCH FACTUAL THING AS MANSLAUGHTER. THERE’S ONLY MURDER 1.
COME BACK AFTER YOU’VE TRANSITIONED.
i’m pretty sure pill was being ironic swank.
he and i both know that what conservatards call “cultural marxism” is what zizek calls “petit bourgeois moralism” AND its purpose is to oppose REAL social change.
the constitution is not constantly being created except by POWER MAD jews.
“In considering this question, then, we must never forget, that it is a constitution we are expounding.” – John ‘POWER MAD JEW’ Marshall.
it isn’t new law, it’s interpretation.
i’m 100% sure that henry hill would agree with me swank-tard.
a judge construes (determines meaning according to original intent) and constructs (applies to the specific case).
or he jews.
immediately after the norman conquest the kings sent out their butt boys to make up the law. they finished a long time ago.
the contemporary distinction between common law and civil law doesn’t exist unless you’re a jew.
Common-law judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. In the civil-law tradition, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles.
This is how Arabic readers read Raven’s questions. It’s exponentially harder to take the test when it’s read in the wrong direction.
Ravens is heavily culture biased against right-to-left readers.
This statement doesn’t invalidate any tests, it’s here to make a point and these tests should be publicly criticized, not treated like religion.
You said I got the answer wrong last time when I said it was A. But you said the answer was G. Because of the top two canceling out as two dots inside cancel two dots outside in the circle below. Sames goes for the bottom right and bottom middle. They cancel out for answer G.
the reason I got A is that we have a circle with 3 dots outside and 2 circles with 2 dots outside each of them but no circle with one circle outside of it.
The odd one out is no circle with a dot on the outside. I was not basing it on additive or subtractive cancellation but simply regularity. (1,2, 3) – (outside(?dots), outside(2dots), outside(3dots))
The predominant language in India [76.5% of the population] is Hindi [or more correctly, Hindustani, which includes Hindi and Urdu]. It’s important to note that languages such as Urdu and Persian are also read from right-to-left.
I see why G is correct. (now I do)
I only got 115 on Ravens.
130 on figure weights.
132 on verbal
the shutting down of bathhouses during the 80s is unconstitutional by your standard swank. after all no crime had been committed.
just as vaccination and the draft are unconstitutional by your NON-standards.
retards fucking is a bad thing unless they’re sterile.
Yes because closing a bath house is the same as permanently sterilizing a human being.
Retards fucking is likely a bad thing most of the time…even if they are sterile, because it means that they are likely being raped.
Communicable diseases for which apprehension, detention, or conditional release of persons are authorized must be specified in Executive Orders of the President.[24] Executive Order 13295 (Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases, April 4, 2003) and its amendments (executive orders 13375 and 13674) specify the following infectious diseases: (1) cholera, (2) diphtheria, (3) infectious tuberculosis, (4) plague, (5) smallpox, (6) yellow fever, (7) viral hemorrhagic fevers (Lassa, Marburg, Ebola, Crimean-Congo, South American, and others not yet isolated or named), (8) severe acute respiratory syndromes, and (9) influenza, from a novel or re-emergent source.[25] In the event of conflict of federal, state, local, and/or tribal health authorities in the use of legal quarantine power, federal law is supreme.[26]
this violates due process by swank’s dim lights. sad!
so do genetic tests required for a marriage license.
No, it doesn’t.
Dim lights would be to equate those diseases and their effects and the nature of the ‘punishment’ to permanent sterilization.
“due process” and “judicial review” aren’t even things in england and never have been.
“due process” must also be a reliable process. thus the barring of vague laws. the lack of any physical tests or physical explanations for most cases of low IQ and “mental illness” and the pathetic un-reliability of psychiatric diagnoses as measured by cohen’s kappa make any coercive treatment of the afflicted qua afflicted a violation of due process. someone may be determined to be a threat to himself and others without any diagnosis.
now swank may object that when the 5th and 14th amendments were passed there were loony bins and men in white coats came to take people away heehee hoho haha…YET the original intent given facts unknown to the framers is STILL that it violates due process…the concept has NOT changes…what has changed is not social norms either…what has changed is more is known than was known.
Yes, the magna carta in England has nothing to do with the concept of due process.
and ‘given facts unknown to the framers’ is a rather — in your terms — JEWISH argument.
it’s also WRONG.
the concept HAS changed.
The English concept of due process (yes one exists) is markedly different from the American concept, which only came into being around the early 20th century.
why do you insist on digging yourself deeper?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#English_law_and_American_law_diverge
and ‘given facts unknown to the framers’ is a rather — in your terms — JEWISH argument. FALSE!
it’s also WRONG. FALSE!
the concept HAS changed. FALSE!
TELL US ALL HOW ORIGINAL INTENT CHANGES SWANK-TARD?
good, you admit you were wrong that ‘due process’ ‘did not exist’ in England, and that the meaning of ‘due process’ is what changed — i.e. due process referring to process known at the time versus some (equitable….?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?) concept of due process.
a good example of original intent changing would be you originally being against judicial activism but then stating that social change altered the second amendment and encouraging a ruling to that effect. so your original intent went from anti-judicial activism to pro-whatever-you-like.
good, you admit you were wrong that ‘due process’ ‘did not exist’ in England
GOOD. YOU ADMIT THAT YOU CAN’T READ.
WHERE DID YOU REALLY GO TO LAW SCHOOL SWANK? OR DID YOU GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL?
but then stating that social change altered the second amendment
YOU ARE SO FUCKING TIRESOME.
I SAID WHAT HAD CHANGED WAS THE TECHNOLOGY OF WARFARE. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT BY “SOCIAL CHANGE”.
ORIGINAL INTENT MEANS IF THE FRAMERS STEPPED INTO A TIME MACHINE AT THE MOMENT OF RATIFICATION WHAT WOULD THEY SAY AFTER BEING INFORMED OF WMDs ETC.
DRRR!
YOU MUST BE SOME KIND OF ANGRY SELF-HATING MINORITY. NO ONE ELSE COULD POSSIBLY BE SO IRRATIONAL.
so your original intent went from anti-judicial activism to pro-whatever-you-like.
WHY DID YOU LIE ABOUT ATTENDING A T14?
YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN EXACT ASCERTAINMENT OF A FACT AND INEXACT ASCERTAINMENT.
“WHATEVER” IMPLIES THAT THE 2D AMENDMENT MIGHT REALLY BE ABOUT LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE BREAST IMPLANTS.
Oh….so technological change alone, not how that technology is now used and can be used, social phenomena….is what matters. Not that the US army has in fact utilized new tech.
Bold-cap more.
If the thing to be ascertained doesn’t exist…..then that’s that.
But I already said that the means you think lead to
“Inexact ascertainment” are inapplicable to human affairs.
And than he proceeds to tell me another fairy tale about original intent, a thought experiment with a time machine no less. And he still can’t see that it is all rhetorical jive.
You’re wrong on every level.
i don’t know, muggy, technology may advance…
If the thing to be ascertained doesn’t exist…..then that’s that. NOW I SEE IT. THE AUTHOR’S OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE JUST MONKEYS AT KEYBOARDS. WHAT’RE THE ODDS?
THIS EXPLAINS WHY SWANK CAN’T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING I SAY OR PILL SAYS. WHAT WE SAY MEANS WHATEVER SWANK WANTS IT TO MEAN.
But I already said that the means you think lead to
“Inexact ascertainment” are inapplicable to human affairs. WHAT’S YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE SWANK? IS THE 2D AMENDMENT ABOUT BREAST IMPLANTS OR NOT?
And than he proceeds to tell me another fairy tale about original intent, a thought experiment with a time machine no less. And he still can’t see that it is all rhetorical jive. BECAUSE IT’S NOT, BUT YOU REALLY REALLY WISH IT WERE FOR SOME PERVERTED REASON.
SWANK’S MORALITY, “IF YOU CAN’T BEAT ‘EM JOIN ‘EM.”
“‘EM” BEING THE CHOSEN PEOPLE.
THE AUTHOR’S OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE JUST MONKEYS AT KEYBOARDS. WHAT’RE THE ODDS?
monkeys keyboards? no. apes.
i understand that you need religious figures to revere, though.
let’s compromise. great apes.
WHAT’S YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE SWANK? IS THE 2D AMENDMENT ABOUT BREAST IMPLANTS OR NOT?
if breast implants like the above were widely available would the 2d amendment be about them because of a change in technology?
muggy necessarily say YES. and that the ORIGINAL INTENT would have something to say about such a situation, even though that’s obviously fucking ridiculous.
BECAUSE IT’S NOT
muggy defends the notion that a law written can possibly contemplate a specific case and its facts before a court of law.
as a matter of fact ZERO original intent can exist in every situation where a court is called upon to derive ‘original intent,’ i.e. the application of a law to specific facts.
morality? i’m just telling you how it is. you just can’t accept it. we’re not even to, given how the world actually works, what ought jurists do….
SWANK YOU RETARDED KIKE.
FACTS CHANGE.
ORIGINAL INTENT NEVER CHANGES, BUT ITS EXTENSION DOES. IT MAY HAVE NO EXTENSION IN THE PRESENT. THIS IS THE CASE WITH THE 2D AMENDMENT.
TO THE EXTENT THAT RIGHT AND WRONG ARE FACTS JUDGES CAN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THEM. WITNESSES CAN’T TESTIFY ABOUT THEM. AMICI CAN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THEM.
DRRR!
IF A JUDGE THINKS OF HIMSELF AS A MORAL ARBITER THEN HE’S A CRIMINAL.
I see. So if original intent has no extension into the present with regard to the 2d amendment….and the 2d amendment is a law that must be interpret3d by the Court….original intent necessarily is not the only jurisprudence.
I see…so judges are not responsible for administering justice in the real sense of the word and are not to consider notions like reasonableness and fairness….
So you ARE a strict constructionist.
and the 2d amendment is a law that must be interpret3d by the Court….original intent necessarily is not the only jurisprudence. DOESN’T FOLLOW SWANK. HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN A COURSE IN LOGIC?
I see…so judges are not responsible for administering justice in the real sense TELL ALL OF US WHAT THE “REAL” SENSE IS SWANK. ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE WHO KNOWS? ARE YOU KEEPING IT A SECRET? of the word and are not to consider notions like reasonableness and fairness….
OBVIOUSLY. THESE ARE WORDS USED BY LOGIC CHALLENGED HUMANITIES MAJORS WHO SCORED LOWER ON THE SAT VERBAL THAN I DID (760) AND HAVE HEMORRHOIDS.
So you ARE a strict constructionist.DOESN’T FOLLOW
Call of Duty: Infinite. Best FPS in the COD series IMO. Outstanding. And Ive played every single one going back almost 20 years.
Jesus the games on the PS4 are brilliant. I bought a ps4 a few weeks ago and my god the games are amazing. Uncharted was basically an interactive movie. And now COD was breathtaking.
Im going play Batman Arkham Knight now. Fantastic Ill let you all know if its good.
Try Witcher 3, stop playing trash games.
Maybe we should invite each other to connect on the PS network and play co-op and multiplayer together. That would be exciting seeing our IQs and big juicy brains in action in real time!!!
Its funny how Race ‘Realist’ calls himself a ‘realist’ on race and has the same opinions as a member of the NAACP or a Berkely sociology professor HAHAHAHAHAHA.
The only thing ‘realistic’ Race writes about it seems is bodybuilding and nutrition which I would say he is an expert in.
He is expert on steroids and parrot these specific informations and also manipulate in huge dishonest way any debate about behavior. There are thousand of rr’s typos in any neighborhood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety
How many nervous breakdowns do need to convince philosopher your not autistic? He cannot tell a person with a nervous disorder probably because he looks and thinks like a vegetable from the video of himself he posted earlier.
I never posted a video of myself on any online medium.
I wonder if the second « he » refers to Kitty and not to you Philo. As a non autistic person you should have understood from the context … and kitty is modest and self deprecating .
swank says: use the law however you want as long as you’re right.
as pill says only a non-white could say such a thing.
indeed, one must listen to those who espouse other principles…..dedicated to the truth of the law regardless of our own personal inclinations…
Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.
kinda reminds me of…
a scholar who was dedicated to truth against all else no matter our foolish ‘policy’ emotional inclinations….
“When I – when we – say 60 percent heritability, it’s not 60 percent of the variation. It is 60 percent of the IQ in any given person.”
zach galafianakis makes fun of swank.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/29cdcf5a64/new-characters-from-zach-galifianakis-from-zach-galifianakis
because meese is an evil fucktard is irrelevant.
for all i know my position is ACTUALLY held only by me.
it’s irrelevant.
because meese is an evil fucktard is irrelevant.
so the fact that the law may secure an evil purpose is irrelevant and the fact that the authorities one may rely on are evil is also irrelevant.
hear evil, do evil, speak (repeat) evil…..and those who disagree are evil!
according to swank hamilton was also a yuge douche.
It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature….The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.[12]
Alexander “I invented Judicial Review” Hamilton.
HOWEVER….
this is the first person you have quoted who was not pure evil.
of course, he definitely did not believe what the above meant what you think it means, given his other positions….
http://www.psypost.org/2018/05/certain-jobs-represented-among-serial-killers-psychopaths-51201
according to swank a good judge does not judge. he does was swank tells him to do and then LIES to the people about why he decided as he did. a good judge only PRETENDS to be a judge when he’s really just a puppet on swank’s hand.
swank is pure EVIL.
OBVIOUSLY.
without any agreement on what makes a judgement correct or incorrect the law is just jews jewing. swank should find another line of work stat.
reading stevens’s and scalia’s opinion there is only ONE correct judgement and i gave it.
one might claim that the framers intended that the 2d amendment apply to the states AND that weapons sufficient to maintain an insurgency or guerrilla warfare in opposition to the federal government shall not be infringed.
BUT whenever there are two possible interpretations the correct one sides with the state and local legislature.
DUH!
i propose a constitutional amendment, a very long constitutional amendment which forbids judges from jewing.
I didn’t say there were no principles on which to determine whether a judgment is or is not correct.
I’ve just said that the way you think it works definitely is not how it works.
I’VE NEVER SAID HOW IT WORKS YOU FUCKTARDED LYING WOMAN.
WHEREAS YOU HAVE SAID THAT THERE ARE NO PRINCIPLES ON WHICH ALL AGREE AND THERE SHOULDN’T BE EXCEPT THE PRINCIPLE “WHATEVER SWANK WANTS”.
That’s not true…whatever works to persuade is the principle. I’ve said that.
That is the check.
A judge must bring about his result in a way that preserves legitimacy.
in this senate hearing on judicial activism there are two gentiles and one effeminate jew. guess which one supports legislating from the bench.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/with-prejudice-supreme-court-activism-and-possible-solutions
the SCOTUS has no check on its power. NONE except death or retirement and being overturned by a future SCOTUS.
elections would make the so-called justices even more political. term limits would make them more political too if they wanted a job after leaving office.
impeachment is already in the constitution, so an amendment making it clear that decisions based on anything other than original intent would focus their minds and thus would never need to be used.
judges in other common law countries have been so power mad that the legislatures have had to pass laws of interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_Act
Lol wrong.
Even Tricky Dick knew that administration is policy.
The check?
Refusal to enforce.
The law doesn’t exist until it is enforced.