If it's in a public gallery or a billboard or something, then the cops can arrest you for public urination/indecency/whatever.
I'm sure you wouldn't argue that you have the right to break into somebody's house and wreck up the place. How is destroying one form of property different than another?
Did somebody commission the art or is it graffiti? What gives you the right to vandalize the art someone else bought and paid for?
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
-H. L. Mencken
+1 Informative
FTFY
It's the stupid redefining of "-phobia" from a psychiatric condition ("an irrational fear of") to "any of a range of negative feelings towards."
I have negative feelings towards murder, does that make me murderphobic?
A lot of people seem to use "hypocrite" to mean "I hate him but have a hard time explaining why." Then half the time whoever they're talking to assumes they have their reasons but don't really want to get into them.
The gay panic defense is generally invoked in cases where the guilt of the defendant is unquestionable, but only as a means to strengthen a more "traditional criminal law defense such as insanity, diminished capacity, provocation, or self-defense" and is not meant to provide justification of the crime on its own.[23] While using the gay panic defense to explain insanity has typically not been successful in winning a complete acquittal, diminished capacity, provocation, and self-defense have all been used successfully to reduce charges and sentences.[23] Historically, in US courts, use of the gay panic defense has not typically resulted the acquittal of the defendant; instead, the defendant was usually found guilty, but on lesser charges, or judges and juries may have cited homosexual solicitation as a mitigating factor, resulting in reduced culpability and sentences.[24] The most famous case in which this occurred was the "Jenny Jones" case, where Jonathan Schmitz was tried for the first-degree murder of Scott Amedure and was instead found guilty of the lesser offense of second-degree murder.[25]
Wikipedia - considering how liberal Wikipedia is, I'd expect them to call it out if "killing trans people is legal" were a real thing.
And apparently California is that 50th state.
Since you're obviously not listening to what I'm saying, I see no point in continuing this discussion.
Good day, sir.
You call Russia an elected monarchy
Actually no, that was other posters; I just didn't argue the point.
I ask you to detail how elected monarchies are arguably a better definition than fascist dictatorships and you sidestep
No I didn't sidestep; I said that monarchies and dictatorships are a continuum, so I don't see that this argument means anything. Putin is rather authoritarian but he was elected so there's aspects of both ends.
Given that I'm the only one who clearly defined what my definition
Yeah, and I'm saying your definition is crap. The difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship isn't well-defined at all.
Well, if we're going to get pedantic, "transitory" would also include ending at the heat death of the universe. You didn't use the word "all" but it seemed like a fair reading of your post.
"Elective Monarchies are a transitory state" has subject-verb agreement problems, too, but now I'm just being spiteful
Are you trying to say that all elective monarchies have a supposed similar political composition that Putin's Russia matches better than it does a fascist dictatorship? Because otherwise, the point you're attempting to make is excessively obscure.
This entire thread has wandered off into the weeds of arguing about hair-splitting terminology differences. I'm not seeing that you have a high road to stand on here, to mangle a few metaphors. What is the difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship? Plenty of kings have gained power by killing anybody who would oppose them. Monarchy can be put on a sliding scale between absolute and constitutional. . . . Heck, back in ancient Rome they called the guy they appointed leader "dictator," but these days aren't dictators required to seize power? Cf. terrorist vs. freedom fighter.
You started out with a good point but now there's a bunch of goalpost-moving going on. "it's a monarchy" "monarchies are just dictatorships" "what about elective ones" "those aren't real governments" "what about this counterexample" "go away"
Yeah, the states not actually being required to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote is a little unsettling. It's crazy how much how the government works now vs. how it was originally intended to work has diverged over time.
I would kind of like to see a slapfight break out over the NPVIC. I imagine if they get close to the necessary threshold things will get interesting.
"Leaky pipe" implies that it's a minor problem.
False. The pipe can be riddled with holes but if you crank up the pressure high enough some minimal amount will still get through.
Anyway everything in moderation is my point I guess.
You, however, are the one whipping out all the personal insults and name-calling.
Saying that a government action would be too ridiculous to do with a straight face is hardly proof that they won't do it anyway these days.
Elective Monarchies are a transitory state
If 844 years is your idea of "transitory," sign me up!
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey
