On 5/2/2022 5:33 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/2/2022 9:02 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 5/2/2022 12:07 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 1:59 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2022 12:58 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 10:59 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah yes, but you're presented a logical fallacy.  You alluded to
>>>>> "rights" earlier in this thread, which only are available because
>>>>> of the formation of this country and now you say the formation of
>>>>> it was illicit.  You can't have it both ways.  The formation was
>>>>> only illicit because of the monarchy's denial of rights.
>>>>
>>>> No, the Declaration refers to "inalienable" rights -- i.e., rights
>>>> granted to every person and throughout all time and thus
>>>> preexisting, say, the Declaration itself.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you confused or lying?  Do you think the King of England gave a
>>> flying fuck about people's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness?
>>> How does someone get this deluded.  I'm reminded of Bob Dylan's
>>> "Idiot Wind": "What's good is bad, what's bad is good, and you cover
>>> up the truth with lies."  Yes, an tyrannical asshole was very
>>> concerned with subjects' inalienable rights.  They formed a new
>>> country just for the fun of it!  Yeah yeah, that's the ticket!
>>
>> I think the King of England imagined himself to be forever in aid of
>> his subjects' ultimate benefit.  (I think Putin does, too.)
>
>
> Perhaps some facts might help.
>
> https://www.history.com/news/how-the-declaration-of-independence-came-to-be
>
> Why Was the Declaration of Independence Written?
> The Declaration of Independence played a critical role in unifying the
> colonies for the bloody struggle they faced.

The point here is merely that the Founders, by their founding, behaved
in contravention of the law of the land, i.e., illicitly -- showing that
strict "legality" isn't always the highest applicable standard.