On 5/1/2022 11:05 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 9:37 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 5:37 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2022 4:44 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2022 4:05 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2022 2:57 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/30/2022 3:49 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2022 8:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2022 5:05 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2022 4:00 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2022 3:49 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2022 1:28 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2022 2:15 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2022 10:06 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2022 10:39 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2022 8:33 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2022 1:08 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2022 5:11 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2022 4:18 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2022 2:50 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2022 3:10 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2022 9:34 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2022 3:38 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2022 5:43 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2022 6:07 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2022 9:11 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2022 8:24 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose as an alternative to incarceration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both men and women be sent on a date with Ms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heard. Clearly a couple of hours with her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would make any person sorry for what they've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done. Not that Johnny Depp, as an example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't deserve it to some extent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen only his courtroom testimony.  What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are we certain he did?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He was passed out due to opiates much of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. Amber of course has accused him of all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinds of things. I don't have a dog in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fight but she really is fucking crazy. Depp was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of an idiot to pursue her in the first place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  From the courtroom videos I do feel sorry for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him ...though bearing in mind that he's an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accomplished actor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for him?  He's fucking deluded himself into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking he knows the "correct" way to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opiates. He might as well be an antivaxxer while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's at it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't consider *self*-delusion a hanging offense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that what we were discussing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Afaik, you were giving reasons to dislike Depp,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including self-delusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So any kind of self delusion is okay even if it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opioid abuse? Before covid, opioids were already a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldwide epidemic.  Are you attempting to downplay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this?  This is the worst thing about this group, even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most rational seem like they've lost reality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, *self* delusion is solely the business of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual. Hell, maybe Depp *has* figured out how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fun with fentanyl. *My* responsibility is only to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let him know he's probably nuts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just offensive.  "Self delusion" trumps the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse of drugs. And that's "his business" if confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself about what he's doing as has every drug addicts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since the dawn of time. And maybe he's "safely" using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fentanyl. Are you drugs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate -- and unacceptable -- alternative is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone else's right to interfere with *my* decisions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that affect only *me*. E.g., if Depp shows no other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signs of mental impairment, he's free to choose drugs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't criticize your personal preference but I sure as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shit don't agree with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Why would you renounce your ultimate right of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-determination?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you're of completely sound mind, why would you give
>>>>>>>>>>>> someone else a veto power over you, about drugs or anything
>>>>>>>>>>>> else?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Who are you claiming gave "veto power" to whom?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just above, you disagree that Depp should be allowed to choose
>>>>>>>>>> drugs ...whereas I'd give him that right, just as I'd demand
>>>>>>>>>> it for myself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That right?  This is a nation of laws, doing stuff that's
>>>>>>>>> illegal isn't a "right".  Wow, that's twisted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a nation based on the concept of *inalienable* rights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and using illicit substances isn't one of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Iirc, forming that nation was 'illicit'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a valid analogy.  The country was formed to escape the
>>>>> King's tyranny.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The king, a.k.a. the law, took a different view.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what that means either.  Unless you're promoting
>>> oligarchies now.  The U.S. took govt. a huge leap forward.  You're
>>> cognizant of this, right?
>>
>> The question is about when 'legality' trumps 'morality', and v.v. .
>
>
> No shit?  And in the context of you calling the formation of this
> country "illicit" that means what exactly?  It sounds like to me that
> you're verbiage is so convoluted you wound up confusing yourself.

The Founders were in direct violation of the law of the land ...which
suggests that 'illicit' isn't always *the* guiding principle.