On 5/2/2022 6:31 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/2/2022 4:50 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Sure, the insurrectionists say the same thing.

Yes, they do, and they're right. Civilization is a tenuous concept...