[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1592455046944.jpg (14.26 KB, 254x254, 1:1, Uncle-Ben.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So apparently racists on 4chan /pol/ have started a campaign to erase famous images of black people from popular products.  And the sad part is that they're actually succeeding, and major companies are doing this!  It started with Aunt Jemima, and now Uncle Ben is getting targeted.  What is wrong with our country???
26 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



I mean you literally violated at least rule 2a and 2c.

I mean you literally violated


File: 1621588984869.png (1.37 MB, 1000x1041, 1000:1041, Storm, Stone, and Salt.png) ImgOps Google

Thread and posts within are now pending mod review. The thread will be locked until I have the free time after work, or another mod can do so.

Do not spread the issue further. If I see anyone trying to make a new thread to continue it or to try to dispute this action I will respond with short bans upon my discovery of said attempts.

Just give me time to work on this.


File: 1621609091395.png (163.09 KB, 500x500, 1:1, That's one way of staring ….png) ImgOps Google

Alright. I am going to lay things out as I see them, and try to get this cleared up.

We'll start with the thread premise. I sincerely doubt that 4chan is responsible for the removal of Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima. I think this is a matter of corporations being the amoral entities they are, and seeing that they can make more money by removing depictions of African-Americans that in the modern day are seen as problematic.

As for why they're problematic, it is summarized decently, here.>>5739

In this post, while your interpretation of the characters is charitable, for many, especially African-Americans, the depiction of these characters is too steeped in the harmful character archetype of the "happy slave."

So we get to here. >>9311
Where the examples of Uncle Ben, Uncle Remus, and Aunt Jemima are all lumped in together as "happy slaves." The sentiment is that these are all characters with their creation absolutely drenched in sentiment many in the modern day feel is racist.

Now: >>9313
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1619553182759.jpg (105.4 KB, 640x523, 640:523, froppy-floppy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Consider the following excerpt:
Far from being rare, wrongful murder convictions are very common (https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/description-of-innocence-cases). Police are under pressure to solve a crime that has gotten a lot of attention. When they find a suspect, they want to believe he's guilty, and ignore or even destroy evidence suggesting otherwise. District attorneys want to be seen as effective and tough on crime, and in order to win convictions are willing to manipulate witnesses and withhold evidence. Court-appointed defense attorneys are overworked and often incompetent. There's a ready supply of criminals willing to give false testimony in return for a lighter sentence, suggestible witnesses who can be made to say whatever police want, and bogus "experts" eager to claim that science proves the defendant is guilty. And juries want to believe them, since otherwise some terrible crime remains unsolved.

This circus of incompetence and dishonesty is the real issue with the death penalty. We don't even reach the point where theoretical questions about the moral justification or effectiveness of capital punishment start to matter, because so many of the people sentenced to death are actually innocent. Whatever it means in theory, in practice capital punishment means killing innocent people.
( Quoted from http://paulgraham.com/real.html )

Any thoughts?
5 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Seems like an odd thing to focus on. Personally, I'd prioritize getting people to the courthouse in the first place. Most state-sanctioned killings aren't death-penalty convictions, they're some scared cop with a twitchy trigger finger and an inability to find their taser. We had 10 death penalty executions carried out in 2020. There were 895 fatal police shootings. It's clear which form of state-endorsed murder we should be focused on here.


I can tell there are a range on opinions on this.  Some have said here police executions are impossible, defining execution as a killing that is discretionary and not designated murder by the state.  Yet like Rabbit, you too are not explicitly trustful of the America government's use of deadly force.


All the more reason people who prioritize principles in policy decisions over practical realities are worthless.

Some ideal scenarios are just pipe dreams and it's foolish to try and pursue them. Ideal justice is sometimes literally impossible and everyone needs to learn to accept that fact or risk becoming monsters in tbat pursuit of justice.


File: 1619240384918.jpg (4.69 MB, 5439x4049, 5439:4049, Russian_hacking_bear_comic….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In pondering different issues in terms of homophobia and transphobia as well as general tolerance with my personal life, something that there's no reason to go into here but that strikes me as giving me a chance for some reflection, something hit me quite strongly.

>In modern America today, showing outright hatred of somebody due to their racial identity is widely frowned upon to the point that one could reasonably be expected to be fired from one's job, kicked out of one's apartment, booted from one's social circle, and otherwise for expressing such malice. This is justified, correctly I think for the most part, by the argument that if one is causing harm to others then self-defense in the form of trying to stop them from doing that or at least to remove them from environments where victims reside is morally justified.

>In modern America today, showing outright hatred of somebody due to their immutable (or fundamental, not likely changeable as well as core to one's behind) identity is widely frowned upon as well as widely lauded, depending greatly on the particular context. In broad terms, however, expressing hatred over somebody's religious background, sexual orientation, gender identity, biological sex, mental health status, national origin, psychological status, level of disability, or such is something that won't cost your your job, won't make you lose all of your friends, won't get you kicked of your apartment, et cetera. Exceptions exist to where, in a weirdly random fashion, some instances of hatred are punished. Generally though, no. As well, instances of hatred are often rewarded depending on the group targeted (for example, being an online comedian and social commentator creating videos on YouTube and elsewhere about the terrible natures of autistic and transgender people can make you famous and well-respected as well as earn you money).

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is morally not acceptable, a question reminds: how then shall the culture be changed, especially when it comes to law and government?

I've got a glib response but one I'd like some serious consideration on. What if the government decided to make everything a race? And I mean everything, as far as fundamental identities go.

Thus, sexually assaulting somebody for being Jewish or subjecting their house to vandalism or whatever will involve the same legal sanction as thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
21 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I can't account for how other people cognate. People are weird in how they feel offended or threatened.


Has anyone here done anything like that?
Or for that matter done anything to suggest they might?

It seems to have come from absolutely nowhere to me.


Man you just described 90% of this damn board. I don't think I've followed a single logical leap anybody has made and the urgent societal issues seem like they've been assembled by a game of madlibs.

 No.8781[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1618291766226.png (503.67 KB, 586x906, 293:453, reddie.png) ImgOps Google

Well, I'm confined to this structure by state order, due to the social unrest and potential social unrest triggered by police killing of Daunte Wright.

I can't say I have opinions to express (aside from a desire for survival).  I do have the observation that the state appears to be deciding -- when officers kill a subject who is not posing an imminent threat, at least in the perspective of many, are these killings to be regarded as random accidents, non-random accidents -- racism of some kind, murder, or appropriate state executions.  I've seen many opinions expressed, it is hard to analyze them fully.  You may express yours if you like.  Maybe identify which faith community you are in, so I can group opinions.  But you don't have to.

Otherwise I hope you have a nice Tuesday.
165 posts and 29 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>In retrospect, I think they were using bold to mark 'quoted' items.

Originally I tried using [tt] to write quotes. But - this is going to be silly - at work i use a command line program called "hh" and I wrote the tags like [hh] which obviously didn't work. Because I knew it was important that the quotes stood out as not my words I needed to fix it. But since the auto updater on this site doesn't update a post when a user updates it, i tried to beat out everyone who loaded the page before the mistake wasn't as easily fixable. So I made it bold, even though that's a really weird choice for quoted text.

In a different timeline that I got a job at a different company, my quotes would have looked like this 


That's terrible. I'm so sorry that these negative experiences have been happening in your personal life over and over again, and I wish you both the best this weekend.


Not that it matters so much to announce it, but I'm booked up tonight and saturday so I'll hopefully pick up where we left off sunday afternoon.

Thanks, I'm doing pretty well for myself nowadays and it's rarely relevant anymore. But the past does sneak up on you from time to time.


File: 1618887416772.jpeg (95.93 KB, 640x871, 640:871, duke-of-sus.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Continuation from https://ponyville.us/pony/res/1080199.html of the discussion that started from >>>/pony/1080500 :
>certain prejudices in society are lessening (so statements like, say, "I'd never date a transgender person", ... et cetera are becoming highly unacceptable among regular people)
70 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I've actually never played it. Have you?


File: 1619222275750.jpg (80.92 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, amogus-champion.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Nope!  Maybe one day.



 No.8964[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1619062304639.jpg (32.71 KB, 500x375, 4:3, Forget-it-snoopy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Modern America today appears to be rather cleanly divided between two strictly divided social groups that both act in such a way that they can not only be analogized to warrying tribes, akin to ancient Romans fighting ancient Celts, but are approaching that of utterly alien separate species, akin the xenomorphs fighting the humans in the famous Sigourney Weaver helmed 'Alien' franchise.

On the one hand, you have white Christians who identify as nationalists (or, at least, act as such). This folds neatly into the conservative movement and the Republican Party specifically in terms of both of those actively seeking these people out as supporters, although of course one can be both a conservative and also a Republican while having none of those traits (please do not view this thread as being based on the premise that all Republicans/conservatives are nationalists). They genuinely and sincerely believe (or, at least, act as such) that their ethnic bloodlines as transplanted Europeans of some stripe embodies them with a long, prestigious heritage of intellectual worth, with everything from architecture to artworks to musical pieces demonstrating this civilizational inheritance. Similarly, as Christians they genuinely and sincerely believe (or, at least, act as such) that their faith tradition makes them an elect class among the general mass of humanity, with their prudence and virtue not only setting them upon a pedestal of superiority among other faiths but giving them a clear understanding that they are the anointed who can guide a fallen world into the light. These tie completely to nationalism given that, as these strident political activists argue, the Founding Fathers created the U.S. to be a white Christian nation based on the idea of a 'shining city on a hill' in which human rights are respected for those who deserve such rights in contrast to the mobs who claim freedoms but do not deserve them due to their wickedness.

On the other hand, you have everybody else. This includes not just everybody who isn't perceived as white and perceived as Christian but also anyone who doesn't fully line up on board with nationalism. In definition terms, certain classes of people such as the LGBT and others also apply here regardless of whether or not they identify as Christian or white, white Christian nationalists not considering somebody to qualify as a 'real American' / 'real Christian' if they don't conform to a certain narrow understanding of whaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
180 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


<I should've included: I take back my request for an apology. While it's deserved, my creation of the thread in the first place and my general behavior as such can quite clearly be said to have to have been 'asking for it'. Perhaps akin to the recent incident in which I sloppily was walking around with an expensive check poking out of a coat pocket and discovered its absence after a short while (most likely not pickpocketing but just that it fell, and somebody picked it up without being willing to return it), having no luck after retracing my steps. Behaving unreasonably in a way that's damaging to oneself is a bad idea. An apology can't be reasonably expected, and so it's not requested. Sorry for not including this addendum in my above post.>


Your OP and the ideas therein had nothing to do with our troubles, and likewise for your political beliefs, as I told you directly several times.

And as for "asking for it" because you're supposedly acting like a doormat, a doormat wouldn't accuse me of something I did not do.
Doormats aren't in the habit of claiming something occurred that factually and objectively did not.

A desire for apology shouldn't be a matter of reasonability, it should be a matter of morality.

To take your incident as an example, regardless of your own unwise action in relation to that check, if someone stole it, they acted immorally and, if they are a person of quality, should apologize and make it right.

Don't let your own troubles get in the way of seeing right and wrong. If something done is wrong, that ought to be all that matters.  Take some pride in yourself, and argue morality from what "ought", not what "is".
If enough of us do, we may well find the world improves.


I would like the thread to be deleted. If not, locked. Thank you.


File: 1616900903239.jpg (67.16 KB, 1100x1100, 1:1, yankee-hill-machine-r9.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Is the $200 tax on mufflers unjust and/or unconstitutional?
16 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I'm not familiar with either the FPC and GOA. Can you provide context?


The FPC is the Firearms Policy Coalition, which seems to, rather than do the typical thing, attempt to challenge laws in courts instead wherever possible, as well as more generally push specific laws and bills, and does a fair bit of cataloguing new changes.

The GOA is the Gun Owners Of America, with the tagline "the only no-compromise gun lobby in washington". They're a more traditional type of rights lobbyist group, with the main distinction that they oppose any new violations of rights, regardless of if it's called a 'compromise' or not.
Their stuff is more the general lobbying type function, which is why I'm starting to lean more to the FPC, as it seems while lobbying certainly has an affect, the FPC is able to do a lot more with a lot less.


Thank you.

My general viewpoint is that the primary threat to gun rights in the long run isn't government actions to restrict freedoms but a general change in the culture such that social attitudes keep evolving, with possibly gun ownership might eventually be seen akin to ownership of cartoon child pornography in the sense of being de jure legally defended but de facto broadly hated (please don't misinterpret this as me making the moral comparison myself as I'm only saying that others believe it).

I admit that while I see this as possibly happening... I don't really know how to respond.


File: 1616711591297.jpeg (235.06 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, large.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Argument Summary: Raising the minimum wage hurts workers.

Supporting reasons:

- in the short term raising the wage makes jobs scarcer since fewer workers may be hired on a firm's labor budget.  This also encourages automation and process efficiency measures to reduce jobs, which might effect employment even if the minimum wage were lowered again.

- in the long term, raising the wage also reduces the number of jobs by forcing some businesses to close due to higher labor cost.

- in the long term, inflation proportional to the minimum wage increase causes no increase in buying power even for those workers privileged with a nominal increase in earnings.

Amplifying Rational:
Since an unemployed worker can be less expected to survive, at least appropriately, granting as many as possible a wage to live on, or as close as can be expected, requires minimum wage be abolished to maximize employment.


You are welcome to agree or disagree with portions or all of the argument, preferably with further discussion as to why.
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1616890555350.jpg (155.76 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Ok, well, rebutting my own argument, I guess.  Rushing a bit because I have to get to work (for the ever-necessary OT).


>higher labor cost.
>inflation proportional to the minimum wage increase

This seems to make the assumption all wage is payed at the minimum wage.  A quick Google search gives me 1.5% of workers in 2020 made minimum wage, and their proportion of labor cost must be much lower.  Roughly speaking, it's a drop in the bucket, which explains why inflation has been increasing in excess of minimum wage for decades.

>encourages automation and process efficiency measures

Maybe, but why can't we create economic systems where that's a win?  Or in short, why is it better to exploit low wage workers than to automate?

Yes, you may have a point, J. Griffon, some businesses that rely heavily on low wage work, and can't automate, might struggle.  On the other hand, as the wage increase occurs across America, if the product or service is really necessary, people will be willing to pay more.  That's the basic idea of paying what something costs.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>There's also the argument that renters will just raise the rent with wage, meaning the only people who actually benefit are the renters.
"Renter" denotes a person who pays rent.  "Landlord" denotes the person who receives the money.


Raising the minimum wage, as far as research has found, tends to either not decrease employment or have a modest reduction in terms of those with jobs, in comparison to a widely substantial improvement in conditions for a large number of individuals.

An interesting article on this is at: https://journalistsresource.org/economics/federal-minimum-wage-research/

Ultimately, though, this gets into a moral question that's outside of traditional economics. Accepting that a significant hike is well understand to mean some harm in terms of lost jobs, how much negativity is acceptable in comparison to the total of those lifted out of poverty (as well as those of better life station more generally)? The counter-factual is also important. What if wage subsidies were enacted? Or additional stimulus checks to people? Or expansions in health care coverage for the poor? Or changes to the food stamp program?

It's rather unclear what changes to U.S. government policy would precisely benefit the working poor the most. In my personal opinion, raising the minimum wage isn't necessarily a horrible idea but in comparison terms seems like a worse option than expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit or sweeting Obamacare exchanges or other measures that involve spending money on the downtrodden without, I believe, hurting jobs as much (or maybe even at all).


File: 1616539894917.png (390.22 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.png) ImgOps Google

This site is slow and sometimes I want to make a thread, but it's hard to know what people want to talk about.  Personally I'm mostly concerned with things related to science and software engineering (but most people don't really care about that).  So, maybe I'll let people pick from some ideas based on me watching Facebook.

1) Should the past acceptance of something guarantee future acceptance?  For example, is it inappropriate to cancel or revisit publications?  If not, how will such impulses be resisted?

2) America has had an odd quiet during the COVID-19 pandemic, but now we can ask again: are weekly mass shootings just the cost of living in a free republic?

3) Something about immigration.  Too many angles in this one, maybe you can help narrow it down.

I don't know.  I got a new lens (which is almost the same as my old one) and protective camera cases.  I'll be working a lot.  I don't have a clear idea how to estimate a point spread function but will generally work on it.  My scientific society is moving along.

Well, hope you all have a nice day.
9 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I'm meaning in recent eras.
But, yes, ultimately I think if the argument is moral responsibility to foreign citizens, then the greater moral improvement would come from taking over those places and incorporating them fully as part of the United States.

I think this would hurt Americans, in all likelihood, but a 'greater good' would be served.
I, personally, do not really like 'greater good' systems as a whole, however.


>greater good
Yes, the main flaw is people don't much agree on what's good.  Suppose your argument would be something like: republican government is good in the long run, America is the most experienced extant Republic, forcing others to conform to the American standard might be rough in the short term, but will be best for everyone in the end.


>Automation is big issue here. Lots of workers are going to be automated out of jobs in the near future. This can be a huge disaster. I have a belief (epistemic status: quite uncertain) that humans have a psychological need to engage in productive work for their tribe/society. Going the "bread and circuses" route (i.e., a large percentage of the population on welfare) might cause the downfall of society.

I believe that this is absolutely factually correct. However, with 100% certainty we can predict that it won't happen like that. Most Americans currently refuse to even allow disadvantaged workers engaged in the labor force full time to experience the standard human rights guaranteed in other Western nations, such as the right to not be discriminated against due to identity status and the right to access to reliable health care. There will never, ever be a situation in the U.S. in which the state as well as the people agree to allow the downtrodden who might potentially survive if given enough support to get that support.

>And of course having millions of people starve to death due to being economically obsolete is also highly undesirable and would likely precipitate violent revolution.

This is half likely what will happen. America is a capitalist nation. America is a consumerist nation. America is a materialist nation. As trends continue, mass suffering is inevtiable. The advantaged will not share the benefits of progress with the general bottom half (or third or whatever) of society. That's just how it is.

I doubt that violent revolution would change a thing. Those in power would just slaughter the disadvantaged. It would be like gnats making war against semi trucks.

There's also a half likely chance that America stops being America. That some radical social advancement takes place that raises the ethical level of the general populace as well as the morals of the powerful. Moral awakenings are a thing. They have occurred. Because I want to be an idealist, I will hope for this.


File: 1613738903946.png (201.41 KB, 896x1024, 7:8, large.png) ImgOps Google

We might imagine three communities:

1. Thomasites:

A religious organization with Scripture saying, "Those named Thomas are evil and need punishments, says the Lord.  Let you not suffer a Thomas to live."

2. Anti-Thomas Political Party

It's about time people named Thomas are moved to the lowest positions in society, if they even deserve to exist.

3. Nation of No-Thomas

It's a crime to have the name Thomas.  Even people named Tony or Tim may get roughed up by cops in this nation.  Nation of No-Thomas prides itself on being tough on crime.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
38 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Thomas needs some damn self-respect. In every instance, he puts his own personal worth behind everything else. In trying to be respectful, he doesn't even aim for fairness, instead just giving himself the short end of the stick by default. Ideas like "Countering a political party will be seen as against free speech" make it clear he doesn't value himself as much as others' opinions. Respect, kindness, and love mean little without self-respect.


Thomas could create his own political party.  But to engage another party without sharing their goals will be unwelcome.


Thomas' parents are dicks. They should have named him something that wouldn't screw him over, and he should just change his name. That's what i would do. Any parent that names their kid Thomas in this scenario is a dick who is unfit to be a parent.


File: 1614473854819.png (492.52 KB, 1280x1415, 256:283, request__alovnek_s_bitcoin….png) ImgOps Google

2 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1614583772282.jpg (65.77 KB, 772x646, 386:323, dash99.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Who would you want to find it?
Whoever can solve the riddle first. If I'd set it up I'd hope someone would solve it and I'd want to see it being solved and enjoy the thrill.


File: 1614595523066.png (1.26 MB, 1094x1200, 547:600, 2996.png) ImgOps Google

It's always interesting reading the original sources to see what was omitted.

Best regards, Sergio.

EDIT: It looks that Eyal0 got it right. His explanation of the probability distribution is the most convincing: it’s not a probability distribution at all! He suggested that Satoshi had access to 58 machines for mining, so to avoid checking the same nonce twice he gave each machine a different id, which was stamped in the LSB of the nonce. I think the reason the machines 10-18 are missing is because they belonged to the next Computer Lab in Satoshi’s faculty, but at the last time he was forgiven access to that Lab.

This explanation could be proved/disproved by checking the frequency of ExtraNonces going back in time. If too many computers are mining together (started at the same time) then one would expect one to be slightly faster than the other, so ExtraNonces are not synchronized. Then a machine with a lower ExtraNonce can solve a block just after a machine with a higher ExtraNonce, and time seams to go back.

EDIT2: Still another theory is that there were only 6 computers, each running a limited range of 10 LSB nonces. One of them broke, and was not used at the last moment. But I don’t buy it, since 58 is not divisible by 6.


File: 1614608842970.png (348.04 KB, 781x786, 781:786, Screenshot from 2021-03-01….png) ImgOps Google

Sadly that makes some sense.  58 PC's...hmm...hope Nakamoto was not mining Bitcoin at work, that would be naughty.

>what was omitted
Thanks for checking, yes.

 No.8465[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1609971316784.png (897.06 KB, 929x952, 929:952, 4654677.png) ImgOps Google

This will be the thread for any discussions concerning today's events at the capitol.

Please keep it civil.
107 posts and 51 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>The justification for shooting her was that she was illegally breaking-and-entering into a restricted government area
I do not think this should be all that is required.
It should never be acceptable to gun down unarmed civilians, just because the area that they are in is "restricted".

> If the government is the one breaking into your home, then there is no similar justification for the government shooting you.
What is the moral difference between a government killing you because it declared the area you are in as "restricted", and the government just killing you?
What constitutes the use of lethal force to murder an unarmed woman whom objectively, as a simple matter of fact, does not pose an immediate threat, just because of where they are?
Why is it acceptable to murder an unarmed civilian in a restricted area, but not in a non-restricted area?

>And, e.g., a rioter who is trying to hit a retreating 17-year-old over the head with a skateboard also may be shot in self-defense.
The difference is, unlike this thug, Kyle Rittenhouse waited until they were an IMMEDIATE threat, as is required to constitute self defense.

He did not just start opening up into the BLM crowd, because they could be a threat.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1611515343898.jpg (42.75 KB, 527x496, 17:16, 1505359329805.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>What is the moral difference between a government killing you because it declared the area you are in as "restricted", and the government just killing you?
In the first case, you have clear notice that what you're doing is liable to get you killed, yet you deliberately disobeyed the law anyway.  In the second case, you have no notice and haven't deliberately disobeyed the law.

At common law, the rule was that deadly force was lawful to stop any fleeing felon.  (I recognize that Ashli wasn't exactly a fleeing felon, but I'm just pointing out 'immediate danger' traditionally hasn't been considered necessary for the use of deadly force.)  The Supreme Court modified the 'fleeing felon' rule in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) to restrict the circumstances in which the government may use deadly force.  I take it that you would restrict it even further.

>We had an investigation.
>We have not had an investigation in this case.
Do you have a source for that?  My understanding is that the 2016 investigations were not timed or intended for being able to alter the outcome of the election.

>They tried. They held an investigation. That investigation came up with nothing.
This year they don't have any evidence of massive fraud either.  So what would be your thoughts if Obama had done what Trump did, alleging without proof that Hillary was the true winner?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>In the first case, you have clear notice that what you're doing is liable to get you killed, yet you deliberately disobeyed the law anyway.  In the second case, you have no notice and haven't deliberately disobeyed the law.
Law is not inherently just.  Whether or not someone breaks the law ought have no basis when it comes to whether they ought live or die.  Legality has no moral basis in and of itself.

>At common law, the rule was that deadly force was lawful to stop any fleeing felon.  (I recognize that Ashli wasn't exactly a fleeing felon, but I'm just pointing out 'immediate danger' traditionally hasn't been considered necessary for the use of deadly force.
If that is the case, I would say common law in that regard is immoral.
A felon does not necessitate someone is violent, let alone an immediate threat.

>My understanding is that the 2016 investigations were not timed or intended for being able to alter the outcome of the election.
They literally tried to impeach him because of this nonsense conspiracy theory.

This said, wouldn't that be reasonable, if we were to presume that Trump won through cheating with the Russians, we ought reverse that illegitimate process, or at least redo the vote?
As far as I understand, we do the same for athletic competition, so why not for things like this?
Again, what's the moral reasoning at play here?

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1612122247290.jpg (267.36 KB, 720x1520, 9:19, IMG_20210131_154040.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google



You didn't include a link, but I did a Google search and found it here: https://rockymountainoyster.com/google-maps-update-introduces-new-show-republicans-feature-to-protect-users-feelings/

Rocky Mountain Oyster is a satire site, like The Onion.


File: 1612171801182.jpeg (530.93 KB, 1000x664, 125:83, 111116_.jpeg) ImgOps Google

...back in my day...


File: 1612158433670.jpg (987.61 KB, 1414x2000, 707:1000, 1537045147285.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

 No.8234[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1607374133054.jpg (93.58 KB, 889x1024, 889:1024, 130743680_1022122736378675….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Saw this picture on social media today with a shit-ton of likes and I'm pretty down with memes and all.

But is this supposed to be humorous?
116 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




As opposed to people like Strong Hippogriff, who want people to be locked away unable to provide the necessities they need to survive, in order to gain some ten years at best to people who didn't even ask you to.


Currently in the Netherlands groups of people are flocking in the street and they're targeting hospitals and Covid test/treatment posts.

Reactions on social media are still laughing about how this virus is a hoax to keep the people down and we need to rise up and take back our society.
While hospitals are taking yet another flood of patients.

I am deeply ashamed of how things are happening in our "civilised" Western part of the world.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]