I think it’s already illegal to take minors across state lines without parental consent.

Ah, right. I must have been blinded by how stupid it is to put “can’t challenge this in court” into a law.

. . . What exactly do you think “starts rights” means?

Because it refers to the right of states to pass laws for their own inhabitants, and the federal government had no right to interfere except in the specific cases the constitution says that it can. In this case, Texas is trying to pass laws for its own inhabitants, and trying to keep the federal government from interfering because the constitution doesn’t specifically call out this area for federal oversight.

Setting aside for a moment their specific goal, this is exactly in line with their stated value of “starts rights.”

Republicans do plenty of terrible things to criticize them for, and they never miss a good chance to be hypocritical, but it’s odd that you’re calling them out for hypocrisy on one of the very rare cases when they are not.

This is starts rights, unless I’m misunderstanding.

If you need hard workers, I am not your man.

Was there ever any doubt?

I myself like to argue things just to argue them. It’s a good way to find out if I’m right, or to learn thing I didn’t know, and correct my misunderstandings.

But I know that’s not everyone’s idea of a good time.

I do my best every two years or so. It’s like trying to put out the sun with a mouthful of water in this state.

I’m an elder millennial. I feel like my life has spent more time on hold than otherwise. Economic crisis, plague, not-really-a-war-but-war, more economic crisis, watered down dictator. . .

Can I just die already?

I seem to recall reading that a German scientist did the experiment that lead directly to the atom bomb before we did our in the US, but that he misinterpreted the results, and tossed the whole line of research.

You could always just say “whoops, I read the question wrong,” particularly since the rest of your answer was right.

If you’re a practicing attorney, can you explain to me what roll the judge and jury have in charging someone with a crime? I had always thought that was done long before they game into the picture.

Arguably, you don’t tell them, and they don’t try to steal the idea, or try to sabotage it, or decide to build was plans that don’t depends on a successful nuclear strike.

That only works if the guard accepts his orders. Legally, they have no choice. But in practical terms, large groups of heavy armed men get to make their own decisions.

If I was her, I’d publish the threat and result in the place I hosted the mod, then nuke my own mod.

But I’m a spiteful little shit.

Huh. Never realized chromebooks were priced that low.

Thanks for the correction.

when you’re exiled alone on an island…

50,000 corpses at Waterloo would debate this one with you.

Desks are cheaper, and the hole only slightly impairs functionality.

I’d argue it’s a good move, and they tried to do some cool things with it, and the visuals are delightful.

It’s absolute crap Star Wars, though.

Again, this is not immediate self-defence, this is something else entirely: this type of situation demands systemic change.

I’m aware it’s not immediate self defence, that’s kind of the point of the question. How many people die while you work on that change? Why are ok killing to defend yourself now, but not to defend a hundred people tomorrow?

You remove them from authority then send them on their merry way to live out their standards alone, far from the rest of us.

And you hope they don’t come back with more people and a plan for revenge. Napoleon was sent off on his merry way. His return cost over 50,000 lives.

Friggin’ children know this already, if someone doesn’t play nice, you stop playing with them.

And what if they won’t let you stop playing with then? Children know bullies, too, and know that you can’t just ignore them.

Why the hell are we still debating the ““virtues”” of murder?!

Because you are unwilling to admit that some people need killing. Not very many, in my opinion. There are usually better options. But killing someone is the only way to be 100% sure that they stop hurting people.

There is no acceptable context for killing someone other than immediate self-defence

But you know he’s gonna kill a hundred people next week. Starve ten thousands people to death over the next six months. Start world war 3, and cause the death of millions of people. Those people people have no recourse to self defence, but you could defend them, right now.