On 5/3/2022 4:07 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/2/2022 5:53 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> 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...
>
> Yeah, no.  The insurrectionists aren't right about anything.

I didn't say they understood it.