Sounds like you need alcohol, and also a pistol, with a few full magazines. Just in case. Try not to let the women see it, if you have occasion to remove your clothes.
How about, because civilization is in fact a better way to live? For example, misplacing a single step when you're 5 years old does NOT result in a slow agonizing death?
Because if you have civilization imperfect eyes are not a death sentence.
Because you can actually survive your 30s (odds > 1% or so) in civilization.
Because of music, movies, culture, science, ...
Oh and if you must have the more practical reason: because the priests come from the cities, usually a while after the city got brutally attacked with every man (and male child starting from ~puberty) from the village and even a few women trying to indiscriminately kill anyone they meet with spears and (before) poison and forcing everyone else to shoot at them, to devastating effect on both sides? Because such a priest sees the bodies, hears the stories of everyone "they'll try it again in 10 years", of mostly villagers but also a number of people that just happened to be in their way, and wonders if there's another way? Oh and, by the way, for this particular purpose, "our savior Jesus Christ" IS in fact another way and a solution, and that, of course, is how religions work.
Because "right of the strongest", brutally imposed through massacres and rape, is not in fact moral, I don't care what ideology or religion you subscribe to? Subsistence farming is a short, brutal way to live and this way of life dials that up to 11, or to 500, really.
I'm not sure why anyone would either not know this, or even insult it, as if the success of your ideology, of "natural purity" is somehow more important than kids surviving, and all the other reasons mentioned above, and I'm sure you can come up with 500 more.
Unfortunately, reasonable men, perhaps virtually all reasonable men, can and will become more corrupted by expansive power. The fact that they were not corrupted when they had less leverage on the populace doesn't mean they will behave differently than other historical German (/human) apparats when they have a bit more of the intoxicating liquor.
>r warrant was for a different address and they left.
I am sorry but this is not something that I find "reasonable" or "positive impression" unless small children are the instigators or low stakes events are involved. If armed men are barging into sacred spaces they need to be able to triple, quadruple check they are performing what the warrant says and if not then nothing else they are doing shall be trusted either. Invading a home uninvited is a life and death matter and there is no room for policeman who make such glaring mistakes even if the natural untrained or undisciplined random person naturally might.
Do you think law enforcement shouldn't exist like the mob shouldn't exist, or do you think they should've gone differently about enforcing the law in this particular case?
They didn't actually make any mistakes. The only way for them to quadruple-check was to knock on my totally featureless door and ask, which they did. There was never a threat of lethal violence, hardly a life and death matter.
>There was never a threat of lethal violence, hardly a life and death matter.
Do you suppose the state charge you with a violence linked crime if you showed up to Chancellor of Germany's private home with a battering ram and holstered weapons and started "readying your battering ram" to barge in? I realize there is the additional element that it was authorized against a different home and "just a mistake" but that is immaterial to whether the execution of a warrant involves threat of lethal violence (that is for good reason, checked by a judge).
That's why I think it was a huge mistake to make teachers mandatory reporters. The idea was that they'd report people neglecting or abusing their children, but what happened is the more egregious cases usually learned to just do a half-ass "home schooling" instead so the child never sees a mandatory reporter and then situation is even worse because now the kid has no escape, no access to doctors, etc.
A few things you can legally do online without ID or age verification in the US
1) buy cigars and pipe tobacco (but not cigarettes!)
2) Buy "CBD" by the pound
3) Buy ammunition, a barrel and the rest of gun parts for a glock, except a frame/receiver that can be 3d printed in a few hours to complete it.
4) Order and have delivered wine
But there are people arguing to skip all that and go to straight to ID for social media. It isn't about the children. It's about keeping tabs on who says what.
Not for wine, not usually. Wine can be mail ordered, the carrier has no idea what it even is. They might require signature on delivey, but anyone who's dealt with UPS and fedex know they will essentially never look at ID. In high school I used to order wine and they had me sign but I was under 18, the box was non-descript and the delivery man had no idea what it was so a kid signing for it made no difference. It's different than beer or liquor sales where it's under the more recent COVID era exceptions that require checking ID and the delivery person actually knows what it is.
The mail order wine stuff is way older and under way different rules than most other alcohol delivery services.
Did you order it under mail order delivery rules or under alcohol retailer rules? They're quite different. If the person you bought it from offered beer and alcohol as well, you were probably ordering under the retailer paradigm which requires an ID check. If you ordered it straight from a wine producer or exclusive wine seller then it was probably under the mail order framework. The point isn't that all wine purchases aren't ID'd, it's that there is a framework under which you can legally order wine online without an ID check happening -- if you pursue the alcohol retailer delivery rather than wine mail order route you might not be able to do that though.
Not in all states. In my home state of Pennsylvania, it's only legal to have alcohol delivered by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. It is not legal to order directly from producers.
I am not disputing that. I am disputing that "most US states, they require the delivery driver to recheck the ID in person" (the original comment I was replying to). "UPS or fedex has to check" is meaningless since they have no idea what it is and essentially no historical nor practical route to prosecution of a common-carrier deliveryman who has no idea what is in the package and no mens rea for wittingly transmitting alcohol to a minor. The states that require adult signature on common carrier delivery essentially have zero legally binding requirement as the deliveryman in most states can't be successfully prosecuted unless there is mens rea that they had prior knowledge the non-descript package was alcohol and the economics of common carrier delivery practically guarantee they will not check IDs when requested to. Thus the "requirement to check at delivery" for mail order wine is actually just a weakest of suggestions with a wink and a nod with no teeth.
While I admit I was wrong, I can say that I didn't actually express any opinion, so there was nothing for you to discard. I do appreciate the rude reply though, thank you for making the environment here so pleasant.
#1 isn't entirely true. It's a soft-gate but you are legally required to verify age on your site before completing the purchase (I run a boutique cigar brand [1]).
Of course not. But literally any excuse that comes to hand will be deployed if it helps the tech industry continue to avoid meaningful consequences. The same handful of companies that have engineered a global surveillance suite that rivals the most tyrannical sovereign governments wildest dreams (and can trivially detect the approximate age of a user) will without a shred of irony deploy legions of paid influencers and other astroturf to decry age verification as an assault on privacy.
But it is an assault on privacy. If "protecting kids" was the goal here they'd push for regulation that forces websites to return standardized metadata that then gets interpreted by the user agent which can be configured by the parent.
Nah, that's a perfectly fine technical solution. Powers that be don't think like that. They understand pulling someone over to check their license, so something like that will do.
sigh If data brokerages, Meta, Google, and Palantir are all staring at you how is it possible to claim privacy is even possible? Like, you have to have a thing before it's possible to assault it.
So having established one would have to institute I'm-hiding-from-at-least-two-sovereign-governments-that-are-actively-hunting-me levels of OPSEC to even stand a chance of avoiding being thoroughly fingerprinted I'm fairly confident in my point is proven here. I don't see anyone proposing to gut Meta and Google's business models, ban data brokerages, or any of a myriad other possible things that would at least in theory result in the possibility of actual online privacy. What I'm seeing is folks screeching at the prospect of a legal framework by which these companies negative impacts on kids might be managed. And of course literally no alternatives are proposed to address said harms in lieu of requiring ID so here we are.
You're attacking a strawman, there are definitely alternatives such as mandating a protocol for describing content that parent-controlled content policies in user agents would key off of. I mean even today you can just ban instagram on your kid's phone. Regarding futility of trying to preserve privacy, I'm not sure if you're aware that Apple doesn't have much of a standalone service business and it's widely deploying OHTTP, anti-fingerprinting, etc. Obviously they moderate their efforts to not push too far, too fast, yet fingerpriting a mobile user on iOS is not trivial.
It's also not uncommon for extravagantly rich people to form family-run charity organizations to distract their nagging wife or family members with a pursuit where they can lord over employees / recipients / organizations without having any profit metrics by which they could be embarrassed by their inferior business chops. This is doubly applicable if you need to distract a nagging hag while you're off banging Russian bridge players.
If it includes ability to vote via campaign donations that cause votes, then yes absolutely. Note for instance in the Massie primary, rich donors literally turned money into new votes by prodding a bunch of demented elderly people who never vote in primaries to believe Massie was banging AOC and Ilhan Omar and secretly a democrat (the vote from regular primary voters remained almost unchanged, the delta was almost entirely new voters brought out by a fraudulent propaganda campaign). That's essentially indistinguishable from those rich people having cast the vote themselves.
I mean if all the people that voted last primary voted basically the same you have some sort of control group, the only significant delta in that primary was a huge group of very elderly people that don't vote in the primaries except this time that showed up after they were targeted for a hilariously false campaign with Isreali AIPAC money.
If the control group changed as well I'd agree with you, but the delta here was basically a huge group of demented people that were specifically targeted to show up in a one-off. It's hardly just disingenuously brushed away as some "other people" that just changed their mind after labeling the other guy's opinion as propaganda because they disagreed.
I wouldn't want a lot of the landscape 100 years ago, but I'd happily be disenfranchised if I could get the size of government 100+ years ago (federal government <~2% of GDP in non-wartime)
You might change your mind if you study the economy of the US in the late 1800's. Those boom and bust cycles were intense, making the great depression of the 1930's look unexceptional.
If you want to get rich, you need an healthy, educated, rich and secure customer and employee base. You don't get that with <~2% of GDP spent on health, education, roads, police, courts et cetera.
There are a gazillion federal prosecutions in the US that go something like
1) Pile of evidence that someone is guilty.
2) Federal "expert witness" allowed and funded to testify it points to X person
3) Defense is broke
4) If defense not broke, judge finds reason why defense expert witness can't present their full argument
5) Prosecution offers plea deal or a gazillion years in jail
6) Person folds when they realize none of their defense is allowed or will be funded, or goes to trial and gets a gazillion years for daring to go to trial.
If you already have a pile of evidence for a crime and an expert witnesses you can keep piling on it's not much of a stretch to dump it on some random person, as we saw here, quite easy actually.
I've known and hung out with a lot of prosecutors. I've never heard one say anything like that outright, but, one of the main issues is that in 99.9% of cases the evidence will not be looked at. They are just not given the time and resources to even take a single glance at the police reports, never mind any forensic evidence. They literally have no idea whether the person is guilty or innocent when they offer a plea deal.
Even your paid defense attorney might never look at the case files at all. Jared from Subway's lawyer got into hot water because he got Jared to take a plea and it turned out he was factually innocent of one of the many offenses he was charged with, and that fact would have been uncovered quickly had the defense attorney ever looked at the evidence, which he said he had not.
In the US legal system, the defense isn't given access to the prosecution's evidence used in the case immediately. In fact, lots of plea bargains happen before the defense attorney knows for sure what evidence there is to tie their client to the crime.
Absolutely. Defense usually has to file a motion, then god forbid the evidence is something like an obscure-format security video; nobody will ever figure out how to get it to the defense or how to play it back.
Most plea bargains are done simply based on the charging instruments.
I doubt any professional prosecutors would say this out loud. This is likely a disciplinable or disbarrable statement.
This is effectively a truth, but prosecutors are generally held to high ethical standards, where they are expected to drop cases / not bring cases if the evidence doesn't point specifically to the defendant.
That said, there are occasionally times when prosecutors have been caught hiding / burying / not sharing exculpatory evidence (something the police / prosecution found which would help the defense's case against the prosecution). The only reason to do so would be to sandbag the case against the defendant even when there is a shadow of a doubt in the prosecution's case.
