TakeYouToTasker

Fair point. Another fair point.

Bullets have cost. Rope is reusable.

Good grief. Do you remember where that nugget of stupid is?

Like what? Educate people that drugs are bad for them, perhaps a cleverly named program delivered by the President's bully pulpit? Perhaps criminalize their possession, distribution, and use to provide additional incentives for abstaining? Maybe we could go so far as to declare a "war" on their use?

It's his entire schtick.

He said the same thing about Mitt Romney. This is an example of the weaponization of sexual harassment charges we're seeing becoming wide spread. Women seeking to damage men in positions of power are now being empowered, and worse incentivized, to do exactly that based on trumped up charges and outright fabrications with impunity.

Do you think there would be a significant uptick in hard drug use if alcohol were made illegal?

I don't feel it should be illegal for consumption, as long as others usage doesn't directly impact me. It should be treated exactly as alcohol in terms of public intoxication charges for those who would use and then come out in public and make a nuisance of themselves, the equivalent of open container or those who would use in public, and mandatory jail time for those who would drive or operate machinery under the influence.

I have never met anyone who stops consuming marijuana before they get high. Further, my understanding, which comes from directly asking smokers, is that those "mirco brew" equivalents tend to be bred stronger, providing a high with the first hit. Again, I feel bad for anyone who feels the quality of their life is enhanced by a chemically altered state of mind. I don't begrudge you your choice to do so, but I think it's a poor choice.

What you enjoy is having your mind altered, and I feel bad for you that you feel it improves your life. That you enjoy it however, is your business, not mine, so I don't care that you smoke it because it's none of my damn business. It's your life to do with as you wish. I feel the same way about alcohol, though I do make room for the fact that someone who enjoys a good glass of Scotch or wine is capable of doing so without altering their mind through moderation. Personally I don't think caffeine rises to that standard, but others may have differing opinions.

I would embrace a mileage tax as opposed to a sales tax on gasoline but not in addition to. In California I suspect they're doing it in concert with losing a massive revenue source when they make certain types of fuels or vehicles illegal.

So you have no evidence other than your feelings and biases. Case dismissed. As flawed as that is, that's still a judgment value about a lifestyle an individual chose. Not a genetic fact. He referenced the individuals chosen activity as an urban drug dealer. He did not reference the individual's gender or race, both things the individual has no say in. So again, are you piggy backing onto his argument that we should develop a legal caste system under which the burden of proof should be more difficult to achieve for white men?

I'll ask you to source for me the decisions Roy Moore has rendered where he referenced group identity as the reason for his decision. Are you piggy backing onto his argument that we should develop a legal caste system under which the burden of proof should be more difficult to achieve for white men?

No, I do not, because justice isn't prejudiced, and I oppose legal caste systems.

Prior convictions and past histories of the individual being sentenced, not the prior histories and convictions of people unrelated. IE. You have served time for larceny in the past, and you're being sentenced for larceny again. You punishment shall be greater the second time, because your first punishment clearly wasn't a deterrent. NOT: You are black, and black people are more likely to commit crime, so you are guilty. The first is reasonable, the second is a gross miscarriage of justice. Of course you aren't talking about black people, as they are awarded a meritorious place is the legal intersectional caste system you're looking to create through their racial history. The people you're looking to harm are straight, cis gendered, white men.

No, judges do not currently sentence based on their feelings surrounding group identities.

You're joking, but you've already told me that's exactly what you'd do. You'd revamp law to adhere to Critical X Theory. That necessitates the formation of a rigid legal caste system, and allowing into evidence historical observations about different groups of people.

Post Modernism is hardly evolution, but rather is regressive, reporting back to failed dogma's of the early 20th century, and undoing all human progress chartered by the enlightenment. You, for instance, would use it to create a hardened caste system, and to try sons for the crimes of their fathers. We've been there already as a species. That's not evolution.

Right... Because a hallmark of libertarian philosophy is the surrender of sovereignty, massive global government, seats of power as far away legislatively from the people as possible, and the increase of the scope of the bureaucratic state. Unbelievable.

A legal hierarchy built on Post Modernism? Good grief.

No it isn't. One was necessitated by the real physical limitations of primitive man. The other is a choice built on politics. And any argument which grants special rights to one sex at the expense of the other subjugates that sex to the other.

Human history has been a long and slow evolutionary social process, usually dictated by necessity and scarcity of resources. Men came to dominate certain social structures through that natural evolutionary process for the same reasons women came to dominate others, both largely exclusionary, first because size and strength differences in a dangerous primitive world, then had those behaviors reinforced genetically through 200,000 years of selective breeding. And we aren't all that far out of the mud, and the progress we've made in terms of equal rights is almost entirely the result of economic growth and technological advancement. The concept of rights themselves has only existed for a flash of light against the entire tapestry of human history. Men never sought to subjugate women. It was simply a process that occurred naturally, and we've grown out of as we're still trying to shake that last bit of clay off our feet. Trying now to erect a system that subjugates men would not be that, however. It would be a deliberate act which is non-evolutionary and is preventable.

Using your process, which is having it's proof of concept borne out through Title IX on college campuses throughout the country; the insistence on believing the accuser doesn't stop with the initial accusation. It examines all evidence with the purpose of looking for guilt, not looking for truth impartially. This leads to evidence not aligning with the claims of the accuser being dismissed, including inconsistent claims, holes in the story, etc. because this is a psychological issue that is common of women who have actually experienced the trauma of sexual assault. When you treat claims prejudicially, you necessarily have to treat evidence prejudicially in pursuit of those claims.

Now you're all over the place. You're stating that "the accuser deserves to be believed", offer no method by which the accused would be able to prove their innocence, and then claim that if you didn't do something you should be able to convince people; all while pushing a standard which has no use for evidence, and telling people to believe the accuser. Would you care for some mustard with that pretzel logic?

What actions? The actions no one has been able to prove occurred? Again, demonstrate to me how an individual proves themselves innocent of charges of inappropriate sexual behavior the accuser says happened last week. Now do the same for charges of behavior 30 years old.