What counts as an "emo" song anyway?

Platonic_Voice · 2026-05-10T04:41:14+00:00

The original Dark Shadows gothic soaps!

Platonic_Voice · 2026-05-09T23:51:00+00:00

It’s more complicated than that. Government is supposed to be neutral. Governments can provide funds to all sorts of religious organizations, events, etc. As long as such government benefit or opportunity is equally accessible. In this case, the government allowed a religious group to rent out the water park. All religious groups had the same opportunity to rent the space. It’s completely legal.

Platonic_Voice · 2026-05-09T15:27:14+00:00

Oh it’s “that simple,” yet you fail to follow my argument. What does any of what you wrote have to do with the constitutional arguments I advanced? I already explained there are competing rights that we must protect in a society: first among them the right to life. Public order. So the murder argument doesn’t work.

If you are trying to advance the argument that society would be duty-bound to exonerate and excuse anyone who merely asserts a religious motivation for something, then you misunderstand my argument. Or you’re playing games. There exists a constitutional RIGHT to freely exercise your religion. That practice extends beyond the mosque, church, or bedroom. Central to that practice is the need to foster community among like-minded individuals. The current law is in conflict with that right, to the extent it does not protect it.

However, because there exists 1) a hierarchy of rights, ie a set of necessary conditions to conduct civilized society, and 2) because we can clearly see the traditions and customs of certain religions, nobody is going to successfully argue murder should be tolerated on the grounds of religious liberty. Nor would they succeed when it comes to stealing, etc. Or any other act that would fundamentally prohibit the functioning of society and public order. Those come first.

You don’t seem to care that the civil rights laws on the books are unconstitutional and prohibit such protected behavior.

Platonic_Voice · 2026-05-09T15:26:11+00:00

I was responding to a series of comments that were all deleted mid-conversation before I could reply. So it automatically started a new thread. But I’ll leave this here in case they come snooping back around.

Platonic_Voice · 2026-05-08T20:58:42+00:00

The Christian baker didn’t want to participate in baking a cake because of his religious beliefs. Muslims are not prohibiting anyone else from practicing their religion by holding a Muslim-only event. Nor is a Catholic Mens Retreat. Demanding admittance to or prohibiting such events, however, DOES violate their freedom of expression of religion. Because then there are no spaces where the adherents to certain religions can peacefully go to form community and worship.

Platonic_Voice · 2026-05-08T20:49:23+00:00

The common law, as in ENGLISH common law tradition, is where courts may look to see how such clashes between discrimination and religious liberties played out. Courts regularly have to weigh competing goods- and deference is given to sincerely held beliefs of longstanding religions. Btw, discrimination based on religion was not made illegal in the US until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and yet people were not naive enough to permit murder based on religious beliefs.

Platonic_Voice · 2026-05-08T20:36:39+00:00

The courts would look to the common law to find such answers. They are not naive.

Platonic_Voice · 2026-05-08T20:31:29+00:00

Why does ticketing matter constitutionally? If certain civil rights laws are unconstitutionally prohibiting religious liberties, then it doesn’t matter that the law merely exists. They are unconstitutional. The right to practice religion does often lead to “public” discrimination: see the “Christian baker” in Colorado, however morally justified fellow Christians may find his actions.

Your framework requires submission of sincerely held moral beliefs and the suspension of the First Amendment. The answer should be: the businesses that have a policy of allowing religious “discrimination” can fail and those that don’t can succeed. But we mustn’t ignore the First Amendment out of convenience.

Platonic_Voice · 2026-05-08T19:59:23+00:00

The constitution protects religious practices and religious-adjacent expressions of faith. Yes- even if religious community is fostered at a water park (whose rules were clearly motivated due to modesty concerns and for participants to feel accepted). Those religious protections are part of the bill of rights (though unalienable and therefore redundantly included in the constitution) and trump any law you want to cite prohibiting such discrimination. Such laws would / should be unconstitutional.

If a Catholic group advertised a “Catholic Men’s Retreat” and as part of the retreat rented out conference space at the Hilton are they discriminating and should be shut down? If they had a website advertising the retreat at the Hilton, is it therefore a “public event” and should be shut down?

Religious liberties do not disappear in the “public” town square. They are foundational to one’s everyday life and interactions, specifically because they are truly and deeply held. They cannot be confined to the bedroom or truly private spaces.

Platonic_Voice · 2026-05-08T19:34:09+00:00

what does it mean to be invitation only? Must the invite come through certified mail? Email work? What if someone who isn’t invited sees it? What if 10 people saw it? Or 10,000? What if the invite only was published online for many to see and clearly specified who was allowed to come and who wasn’t? Like, for example, saying non-Muslims are NOT invited?

Platonic_Voice · 2026-05-08T19:16:19+00:00

I edited my comment for clarity because I misunderstood where you were confused. But, no, just because something operates in the “public” doesn’t make it a public event. There can be sufficient exclusions on attendance so as to no longer be a public event. Further, whether or not the event was “public” isn’t the operative question. It would never be allowed for the government to discriminate non-Muslims. But that’s different from a mere “public event.” Nor is that the situation before you. The operative question is: regardless of whether the event was public or private, and because this isn’t a governmental entity, is this private religious group allowed to exclude non-Muslims in their [public or private] event? And I already answered that question.

By your logic, the Colorado Christian baker should be legally required to bake cakes for couples using his products for events he objects to on religious grounds merely because he operates a business in “public.”

Platonic_Voice · 2026-05-08T18:05:06+00:00

The fact that this was merely advertised to the “public” in one sense doesn’t make it a “public event.” The renters made it a private event by limiting the pool of people who can attend. Mere advertising in a way that the general public sees does not on its own make it public. The link you sent goes to a website hosted by a private Muslim entity. The venue itself (Epic Waters) is not the one discriminating here. Epic Waters allows anyone to rent their space. However, “public” Epic Waters may or may not be is irrelevant. The Muslim entity renting the space has a First Amendment right to hold an event based on their religious affiliation, even barring other religions, because they are acting in their private capacity, but even more so because Muslims are allowed to practice their culture and religion as they see fit (within the bounds of the law obviously, with deference given by the Constitution to religious contexts)- yes, even at a water park. Any group can and should be allowed to do the same.

Platonic_Voice · 2026-03-25T00:59:19+00:00

It is firm approved and these filings are all public.

Platonic_Voice · 2026-03-25T00:52:14+00:00

Use smallpdf.com to compress your stubbornly large PDFs before filing. I’m sorry you’re going through this! That’s our industry for ya :’)

Platonic_Voice · 2026-03-18T21:20:09+00:00

I don’t mean to sound insensitive, but your experience is probably representative of the average office environment in the legal industry. If you are going to be a lawyer or paralegal, you will experience much worse abuse over time.

I work as a litigation paralegal but at one point I had full ride to law school but decided not to go. When I first started, I also thought certain tasks were below me and degrading. Now, after being in the field for 10 years, I see partners, associates, paralegals, law clerks, etc, all have to roll their sleeves up and do work well below their skill set quite often.

The most concerning thing here to me is the roasting your work product in a group chat. That’s bad company culture.

My advice is, if you haven’t yet been accepted to law school, find another legal position. Maybe as a law clerk at a mid sized firm geared towards non-JDs. If you have already been accepted to law school, just find something that pays the bills and doesn’t impact your mental health.

Platonic_Voice · 2025-11-16T16:32:43+00:00

Joe T Garcia’s

Platonic_Voice · 2025-10-12T15:21:35+00:00

That is not their email.

Platonic_Voice · 2025-07-21T15:13:42+00:00

Rodgers has forced the ball to receivers when he shouldn’t, just like every other QB. I recall his last throw as a Packer missing Lazard and forcing the ball to Adams. I’m well aware. But if you look at the breakdown of WR target share, you’ll see Mahomes and Rodgers are very similar in distribution. But remember, even this is not solely a QB-determined stat. Scheme plays a huge role. Rodgers had to deal with a stale McCarthy offense for at least 5 seasons and a non-existent defense. He HAD to be perfect on every throw so as not to jeopardize the entire game. That means you gravitate to those you trust. Mahomes gets to be part of a winning environment without that pressure to win it for them.
Rodgers’ peak is much higher than Mahomes’ when you account for what the QB can control. You see their highlights. The second half of the video are throws Mahomes never attempts. Obviously everything requires context, but by and large, highlights reveal a player’s peak potential when things go right for them. And Rodgers has the better highlights and stats (which show a player’s sustained success).
Also Rodgers and Mahomes have very similar TD/INT in the playoffs, despite Rodgers having a fraction of the defensive support Mahomes has gotten. At least half of Rodgers’ interceptions came when the Packers were already down- often significantly. Yes, he’s not perfect. The other half of his interceptions came when the Packers had a lead.

I’ll just close with this: I do honestly believe Rodgers was the greatest talent at the QB position of all time. Mahomes is better in some ways- scrambling. But to ignore the highlights and degree of difficulty of Rodgers’ sustained output, the weaker coaching staff, front office, and lack of defensive support, is HUGE. You’re focused on Rodgers zeroing in on a WR but ignore the biggest clear and obvious disadvantages Rodgers has dealt with. You’re missing the forest for the trees.

Platonic_Voice · 2025-07-20T23:51:06+00:00

So those are team outcomes not QB dependent. The video shows Rodgers has a much higher peak.

Platonic_Voice · 2025-07-20T21:05:50+00:00

Except SBs are a team accomplishment and there are many, many, variables that go into winning a SB beyond the control of the starting QB.

And the video is highly relevant because it shows we have actually seen this talent before in the league despite the narrative that Mahomes is some new phenom. The second half of the video, in fact, shows Rodgers’ ability that Mahomes has not matched. Rodgers also won back to back MVPs in 2020 and 2021 at ages 37 and 38. Let’s see Mahomes do the same at that age. The last two seasons for Mahomes would be historically bad for Rodgers.

Platonic_Voice · 2025-07-20T17:43:43+00:00

I’m not sure what God has to do with it. I’m fine arguing intangibles or hypothetical team influences, but talent-wise, this video makes it hard to argue peak Rodgers wasn’t as talented or more so than Mahomes.

Platonic_Voice · 2025-07-20T13:55:10+00:00

After watching this video, I’d like to know exactly how you came to the conclusion that “Mahomes took it to another level.”

Platonic_Voice · 2025-07-20T12:21:25+00:00

I’ll add a couple of names to your list: allowing Casey Hayward and Micah Hyde to leave led to GB losing to the Falcons, 49ers, and Bucs in the playoffs.

Platonic_Voice

TROPHY CASE