scoofy

30 ms·

601.
by scoofy 11mo ago
Unlike normal activities, driving is an overtly public act. You need permission to do it, and it’s entirely reasonable for the state to monitor you doing it. That really complicates things.
602.
by scoofy 11mo ago
I never suggested it was… which is exactly why pointing to unrelated political violence is whataboutism.
603.
by scoofy 11mo ago
> So if you are earnestly concerned about the rule of law (and I agree we should be!), you should be focusing your current ire on those federal law-breaking forces. More whataboutism… always whataboutism.
604.
by scoofy 11mo ago
I’ve offered multiple examples of states and municipalities working together with federal enforcement of FEDERAL laws. The idea that this isn’t enough to satisfy you is ridiculous.
605.
by scoofy 11mo ago
I actually don’t think that’s relevant. I don’t think people vote for one party or another because of their race or ethnicity. I think assuming people vote along ethnic lines is honestly pretty idiotic, and I think the last two elections ha
606.
by scoofy 11mo ago
My point is about the laws themselves. If they were unjust laws, there is an argument for civil disobedience. They aren’t though, so civil disobedience here is just anti-democratic.
607.
by scoofy 11mo ago
Again, I agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately whataboutism isn’t an argument.
608.
by scoofy 11mo ago
> Has there ever been a state and federal partnership on federal tax fraud for instance? Yes, obviously: https://www.fincen.gov/financial-fraud-enforcement-task-forc...
609.
by scoofy 11mo ago
Yea, I’d say we generally agree. Though I think noncompliance laws like sanctuary city laws are a significant escalation over just choosing a different allocation of resources. My point is only that if the feds are going to go full agents
610.
by scoofy 11mo ago
If by “feel the same way” you mean “wouldn’t be surprised if random folks start getting charged with marijuana possession if the administration starts enforcing the laws on the books,” then yes. I don’t “support” what the administration is
611.
by scoofy 11mo ago
> There is no more blue state ignoring immigration laws than blue states ignoring crimes like federal tax evasion. It’s not the state’s responsibility to enforce immigration laws or to help the federal government Local authorities often
612.
by scoofy 11mo ago
The issue is that it is illegal AND a nontrivial part of the electorate wants it enforced . The “let’s all step back and consider my side’s view of this” isn’t really relevant after our side loses elections. If the will of the people is
613.
by scoofy 11mo ago
I’m not suggesting that nullification is against the law. It’s not. States have the right to ignore federal laws if they choose to. However if the states refuse to cooperate with law enforcement, and especially when they pass laws making co
614.
by scoofy 1y ago
> I don’t downvote people that have a different opinion so it ain’t me Totally fair. I’ve had a tough time with my good-faith, heterodox views on this issue lately. >>they are not responsible for the laws on the books >so in 26&
615.
by scoofy 1y ago
So, is this what we are doing? Downvoting and non sequiturs that amount to deflection and whataboutism? Not caring about democratic results — when human rights are not at issue — is a very dangerous precedent. I absolutely hate the curren
616.
by scoofy 1y ago
Look, the point is that democracy should mean democracy . You don't like our immigration laws. I really don't like our immigration laws. They're still our immigration laws, we should fight to change them. Nobody's hum
617.
by scoofy 1y ago
I can understand the argument insofar as it's necessary for the business to want it clean, so the result is not a tragedy of the commons. I knew a special needs teacher when I was younger who would make this argument, but it was spec
618.
by scoofy 1y ago
It takes 30 seconds.
619.
by scoofy 1y ago
>Her parents only care about themselves, 50 years ago and today >>Oh, word? It's dope you know the inner thoughts of everyone involved.
620.
by scoofy 1y ago
I don’t think she’s guilty of anything. If I had a daughter that was engaging in violent political uprisings as a young teen, I’d try my best to get her help. That’s presumably why her parents sent her to a reform program. My point is the s
621.
by scoofy 1y ago
You’re reading people, like myself, who are upset with the articles framing, because it has created a causal link between the reasonable concern that a parent would have with a child engaging in political violence, with the result of a co
622.
by scoofy 1y ago
Violence isn’t speech. Calling Molotov cocktailing a street “protest” is absurd. It’s effectively armed conflict.
623.
by scoofy 1y ago
Nobody wanted her tortured except the criminals torturing her. Throwing Molotov cocktail is trivially an criminal offense. OP is making it clear that framing it as she was a “free spirit” is ridiculous.
624.
by scoofy 1y ago
Ctrl+F: Quine That indeterminacy of translation isn’t mentioned is a huge shortcoming of this article.
625.
by scoofy 1y ago
Your concern is with the executive powers, that's an issue for the judicial branch. Our discussion is about the legislative branch and the electoral process. That's how we create law. This discussion is about the consequences of n
626.
by scoofy 1y ago
> I see we've reached the point in the discussion where you 'abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating...that the time for argument is over.' I literally continued the discussion with this user in the other thread he was po
627.
by scoofy 1y ago
Enforcement of traffic laws for public safety?!? Clearly you don't have American priorities. You need to focus more on level of service and only level of service. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article&#
628.
by scoofy 1y ago
>Do you see why this might actually be seen as increasing public trust in local LEOs who aren't participating in human rights abuses? > And can you see why not condoning those abuses gets the populace on "our" side? I’m
629.
by scoofy 1y ago
That’s a very important concern that is not directly relevant to whether or not the laws being enforced are democratic or whether the person who is enforcing those laws is a democratically elected representative. I’ve repeatedly noted my co
630.
by scoofy 1y ago
I've said over and over that nullification is the right of states and municipalities. My entire point is that it's inherently an escalation. When the feds choose to enforce a law is areas that are actively trying to prevent that

More ›