In your heart, you know that you're 100% incorrect. You're being deliberately obtuse.

You seem like a creationist.

I don't care about the clothes I wear. I go to job interviews dressed in what are essentially rags simply to eliminate employers who are worthless and superficial. Other than that, I just dress in random comfortable clothes (not suits or anything formal, since I don't find them comfortable).

I seem to be making quite a bit of money, so your absolutist statement is incorrect. It's all about finding the right place to work in. I choose not to surround myself with worthless people who only care about the superficial.

But it's probably true more often than not. But what does that mean, other than that our species is mentally diseased?

Nope. It does actually help.

You don't get to decide what my true purpose is; I do. Society can go fuck itself, because my teeth aren't even straight.

Speak for yourself.

Yes. Eventually you realize it's the programmers that make the difference, not the language.

Any time you hear someone say, "we're going to rewrite this because the new language will make things better" you know that their new product will be even worse.

Then go find the original source, it's cited in the article. That is something you can do.

But even if it weren't unconstitutional (it is), I would still be 100% opposed to DUI checkpoints. Much like the TSA, it's not something a country that is truly 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' would do.

The difference is that you're offering a certain service (and food) to people. Regardless, this doesn't even matter.

While you seem to be basing yours off an interpretation of the fourth amendment that renders it useless. There is nothing the government could not justify with your bullshit logic.

Personally, I think the word "unreasonable" shouldn't even be there, as it allows people like the fools who try to justify DUI checkpoints to twist the constitution's intentions to meet their authoritarian needs. That was a mistake on the part of the founders, though I suspect they couldn't predict every situation where tyrants would try to eliminate freedom.

Were it up to me, there would be a constitutional amendment that eliminated much of the government's powers and set things right, only allowing very explicitly defined exceptions, making it necessary to amend it in the future if it is required. I do think DUI checkpoints are absolutely unconstitutional, but people will abuse that "unreasonable" word to justify anything, as you yourself have proven.

You'll eventually notice the cavities, though. Especially with as much sugar as I eat.

It didn't look like you were trying to reason to begin with. More like trying to make (bad) excuses for a system which forbids certain speech using arbitrary, subjective standards (much like the US, as I've been saying).

No, "clear up bad breath" = "I have a bad taste in my mouth, and I don't like the smell of my breath, so I'm going to try to remove it." Seriously, how can you be that dense? Not everyone is an attention whore; I'm an extreme introvert.

I brush my teeth to prevent cavities and help clear up bad breath.

A massive, egregious, plain-as-day violation of people's constitutional liberties is not and never will be petty. They molest everyone and violate their rights merely for trying to get on a plane. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Also, the logic of, "There are bigger issues than X, so X isn't bad." is nonsense.

They are *all* constitutional violations, and *all* constitutional violations are serious matters.

There is another difference: In a restaurant, you're serving other people food, which, depending on how contaminated the restaurant is, may be dangerous. I still don't agree with the health inspections you speak of, by the way.

The kinds of health inspections you refer to might not be so different, which would make them unconstitutional. Did you think I would reach any other conclusion?

But there are still differences, and that is that the government may not just make you surrender your rights in exchange for being allowed to do something completely innocuous (and often essential) like driving a car. Anyone who supports such things is an authoritarian scumbag of the highest caliber.

Are you also in favor of the TSA ("You implicitly consent to giving up your 4th amendment rights by trying to get on a plane.")? How about we apply this logic to an entire city? "You implicitly consent to giving up your fourth amendment rights by living in or being in city X. If you don't like it, don't live or be there." It's just a bullshit way to get around constitutional restrictions. I will *never* accept this logic, so give up.

Yes. Whether or not traffic lights were replaced by a human doesn't matter to me. What matters is the sobriety test.

How can you say it is black and white when you yourself tried to list an example where it is not?

The US is merely *very strongly* in favor of free speech (except for FCC censorship, obscenity laws, free speech zones, libel, slander, and... holy shit!).

The UK approaches one where speech is arbitrarily decided to be 'harmful' and is thus banned. It's subjective nonsense that has no place in any free society, much like obscenity laws, or the US's FCC censorship. The idea that speech can be banned for being offensive is simply absurd.

And you say the US is black and white about free speech? Please. We make random, arbitrary, and subjective exceptions to the first amendment all the time, even though it's blatantly unconstitutional.

I didn't misread it.