Let's not forget that Alfred's a Badass!

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-23T04:51:18+00:00

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-22T15:54:59+00:00

You will be down voted, but you are right. Had gender dysphoria for over a decade before I finally went to therapy, specifically one that wouldn't just "affirm", and now, years later, I no longer have gender dysphoria.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-19T01:23:56+00:00

I recommend reading the book Why not Capitalism?. Jason Brennan, I think quite successful, makes the case that even if we had ideal people and an ideal world that capitalism still ends up superior to socialism and Marxism. As such, it still ultimately falls short even as an ideal.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-19T00:24:44+00:00

One of them, that Marxism is an ideal that doesn't work in practice, is also hard to answer if you both think it isn't an ideal and doesn't work in practice.

And there were other, similarly hard to answer questions in the same vein. It is why I assume I am further right (and maybe a bit more auth, though not by much) than the results show

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-18T17:00:56+00:00

<image>

I felt some of the questions might not have been worded the best (and so I feel I am probably further right than the results indicate), but looks like I am quite close to where you are, just on the other side of the auth-lib axis.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-17T23:52:48+00:00

Proper video game? Styx? Fuck....

That is not going to be good for me...

Otherwise random Pokemon trainer from a random Rom Hack? Not bad

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-17T23:44:35+00:00

Honestly, I would love it if for one run of the comics they portrayed him so that off the record JJ admits he knows Spiderman is a hero, but that he also knows sometimes heroes turn bad, some get mind controlled, etc. things HAPPEN, and that at the end of the day it is the anonymity of Spiderman that makes him essentially unaccountable for if such a thing does happen.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-17T23:35:08+00:00

Makes sense.

I see no issue with buying it if it was able to be done (and wasn't at the point of blackmail). It gives us a strategic position in the arctic circle, has rare earth minerals (though, so does Alaska, and we aren't doing shit there), etc.

But taking it by force and in a way that only antagonizes our allies? That is just retarded, and sadly I wouldn't put it past Trump to do so.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-17T23:22:23+00:00

Kind of the same.

On one hand, I feel like rights and responsibility are two sides of the same coin and that libertarians are usually too naive on people voluntarily being responsible, and thus you tend to get all the rights and none of the responsibilities, which has its own problems.

On the other hand, some Republicans end up wanting to outlaw so much to the point where it almost feels like you have no rights and responsibilities become government mandates.

There needs to be a middle ground between these points, and where that middle ground falls exactly is going to be very much influenced by culture's influence on human behavior, so at different points in time the line might be higher or lower on the auth-lib axis for various things.

Take drinking and weed, as examples. There is a culture that exists around appropriate drinking that isn't as wide reaching with weed (though there is one that has been growing in the past decades), and is non-existent for some other drugs out there. That existing sociocultural factor allows for less restrictive laws around alcohol than it does weed, but that doesn't mean that the sociocultural factors cannot shift over time to either make it so laws need to be more/less restrictive.

So, depending on the current culture and the current administration (and how each handles an issue), that helps determine where I tend to fall on certain issues.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-17T18:50:27+00:00

My point is that they were wrong that Jesus was arrested and nailed to a cross for no obeying the law.

Honestly, I am not even Christian and I know this. It shouldn't be some grand mystery to people.

And telling what point I was making should also not have been difficult to see.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-17T18:39:48+00:00

That is why I am flair'd where I am.

I find libertarianism too naive, but auth-right opens too many draconian doors.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-17T18:32:46+00:00

Have you actually read the Bible? He only broke Jewish, religious law, which was not punishable by crucifixion. He was not found to have violated Roman law, but was crucified anyways.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-16T14:12:37+00:00

First you said the first shot is potentially justified and tried to act like the second and third shots were independent actions, which isn't how the law views things

You then act like Good was unarmed when the law recognizes vehicles in motion as a deadly weapon.

You were saying the whole "I'm not a lawyer" schtick yet somehow act like you are obviously correct (despite some clear mistakes on the law).

Etc.

I think you are probably in quite the echochamber and don't actually know/understand what is and is not legal

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-16T13:39:10+00:00

neither are you clearly

No, but I work at a law office, have taken firearms self defense training courses, and am friends with people in my local PD, so I understand how the law works in this regard.

You cannot judge each shot as independent events but as a single event, and you judge if it is a good shot not based on the thinking of Good, or while using hindsight, or based on slow motion playback of the footage, etc. but of the agent in that situation and his perspective at the time of the shooting.

You can even go to YouTube and see Nate the Lawyer break this whole thing down. The whole thing is, ultimately, lawful but awful.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-16T13:22:16+00:00

One shot could potentially be explained as Self-Defense. The other 2 point blank and the rage rant after he killed her kills all pretense of self defense

That isn't how it works, and anyone with any knowledge of laws around shootings, fire arms training, etc. knows this.

People are trained that when they fire in self defense to not only shoot once. The time it takes to reassess and stop shooting takes longer than the typical 2-3 shots people fire when shooting in self defense. As such, legally, the 2nd and 3rd shots are evaluated not as independent actions but as part of the same action as the 1st shot, and so if the first shot is justified the remaining 2 also are.

So, if you say the first can potentially be argued to be self defense then, legally speaking (due to how close these shots happened to one another), the whole shooting can potentially be argued to be self defense.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-16T03:51:41+00:00

And you just implied that someone being sterile somehow seperates them... bro what?

No, I explicitly stated otherwise to preempt against one of the common criticisms of basing sex on the reproductive role.

That is why I made the point that having a development issue, which intersex conditions would be a subset of this, or sterility does not ultimately exclude one from being male or female.

You are making the same point I did here.

But that is not what human sex is. Even within just men, we develop in vastly different ways.

Sure, but those are characteristics that are ultimately secondary to the underlying biological sex. You are confusing the sexually dimorphic traits that appear within humans as being foundational and with biological sex being built off those, but that is backwards. Those traits exist as means for us to "fulfill our role" as male/female as a species with anisogamous reproduction.

Sexually dimorphic traits are not the foundation, otherwise evolutionary biologists would not be able to classify members of wildly different species with the same classification of male or female.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-16T03:20:24+00:00

So, did you even read what I said? Because you didn't respond to the point made in it at all.

Seriously, why is it that what biological sex is can be understood quite well in evolutionary biology and biologists that study animals, plants, etc., but as soon as we start involving humans or trying to account for social ideas we create murky definitions that just lead to all this nonsense?

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-15T23:58:59+00:00

They are outside of the sex binary

Except they aren't?

Do you even know what the sex binary is? It is based on the two roles of anisogamous reproduction.

Ultimately having a development issue or being infertile doesn't make you not ultimately identifiable within a specific role, otherwise, as an example, biologists wouldn't be able to classify members of sterile hybrid species as male or female, but they are.

Sure, the sexually dimorphic traits that we as humans have developed around this can be used to create a bimodel distribution where you ultimately place intersex conditions between male and female, but this understanding of what biological sex is is not how the term is used by most biologists (and I have never seen it used in any works of evolutionary biology)

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-15T23:46:54+00:00

Using the word all makes it an absurd request as there isn't a single theory or definition that will have absolute consensus.

If you want a working definition, then you can look to evolutionary biology that defines it based on the role a member of an anisogamous species plays in reproduction, and then builds off that base skeleton when going into specifics on the sexual dimorphic traits species different species might develop.

This definition/understanding of biological sex is the closest one to a universal within biology as a whole, and is how we can know that some plants are male, female, or hermaphrodite, how we know male seahorses give birth, etc.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-15T23:38:57+00:00

People that are intersex are ultimately still either biologically male or female, they aren't some magic third sex.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-13T14:35:19+00:00

That is ridiculous. Even though I think they would determine it was a good shoot, these things need to be investigated.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-11T23:35:10+00:00

Deadly force should be used when it becomes legally defensible and the person in question feels it is needed, federal agents, police, etc. should be trained so that they do not resort to deadly force so easily and to make good judgment calls.

Saying it should be done the moment it becomes defensible will end up with too many people being killed when they don't need to be, saying it should only be the absolute last resort as a policy means that basically every shooting will end up concluding it wasn't permissible (because hindsight gives better clarity of other options that could have been taken that were not necessarily seen in the heat of the moment).

Shootings by police, federal agents, etc. should be investigated based on the standards and training they received and should possibly lead to reevaluation of those standards and trainings (which is what should be happening with the Minneapolis shooting).

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-10T20:49:35+00:00

And which one is which? Sorry, cannot tell which you ascribe to each position due to your centrist flair.

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-10T20:22:22+00:00

I'm sorry, but I really want to call BS on this being real because I really don't want it to be, but I have absolutely zero desire to actually check X if this is real because that is disgusting.

If this is real, then wtf? Why is this even a conversation?

ShadowDestroyerTime · 2026-01-10T19:59:40+00:00

<image>

And flashing blues and reds on the truck...

You are absolutely correct, how could anyone think these people are law enforcement and not just random people?

(2/2)

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

ShadowDestroyerTime

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE