|
ReverendCode posted:Because abortion is the same thing as cannabis, and forbidding something is literally the same thing as allowing it. You've joined us late, I see. Earlier, cannabis was slavery. That one didn't take, so it's abortions for some and miniature roach clips for others.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:11 |
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Explain how "you are not allowed to have an abortion" is different from "you are not allowed to grow marijuana"? What does any of this have to do with my post?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Ok so if there was a thread in posted in D&D tomorrow saying "Texas passes law to make abortion illegal state wide", your first post in the thread would be: I'm really not sure what sort of logical trap you think is going on because problem number one with it is I don't give a poo poo. Edit: It's weird that you can't understand nuance altogether but putting words into everyone's mouth is just creepy. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
mdemone posted:You've joined us late, I see. Earlier, cannabis was slavery. That one didn't take, so it's abortions for some and miniature roach clips for others. 5 posts in a row that are nothing but no content, strawmen arguments. A new D&D record! twodot posted:They use different words that consist of different letters, so they are definitely different things. If you want to argue we should treat different things the same, I think the burden should be on you to tell us why. In any case, these three things are similar in that they are all laws that would place requirements on individuals. They are different in that the Supreme Court tells us that the Constitution forbids us from creating the first, allows us to create the second, and hasn't spoken on the third to my knowledge (though I think the Supreme Court would be ok with states doing it, and not ok with the federal government doing it). Just wanted confirmation that you are supporting the "its good when I want it, bad when I don't want it" argument. I'm not knocking you on doing this by the way. It's a perfectly reasonable argument to try and convince people that having 2 contradictory beliefs in their head at the same time is ok. There is nothing wrong with that. "2-way thinking" has been a real thing for 30 years now. So just to clarify. If the federal government says: "it is illegal to grow a plant" - State law trumps federal law "it is illegal to deny an abortion" - Federal law trumps state law "it is illegal to teach creationism in public school" - Federal law trumps state law "it is illegal to have an assault rifle" - Federal law trumps state law "it is illegal to deny black people service at a white's only lunch counter" - Federal law trumps state law "it is illegal for homosexuals to get married" - State law trumps federal law "it is illegal to harbor fugitive slaves" - State law trumps federal law Did I get those all correct? I understand now that the reason why either state or federal trumps the other is solely because of "MY FEELS". Nothing wrong with making that argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
The only public figure I can think of for whom federalism itself was a central "issue" was Ron Paul, who obviously opposed it. E. Are you asking for a lecture on how the 10th and 14th Amendments work? DOCTOR ZIMBARDO fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Did I get those all correct? I understand now that the reason why either state or federal trumps the other is solely because of "MY FEELS". Nothing wrong with making that argument. By "my feels" do you mean "a coherent executive policy"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:By "my feels" do you mean "a coherent executive policy"? It's coherent now? Great!!! Lets prove that right now! Suppose there is a law on the books, by the federal government, that says "it is illegal to do X" A state just passes a new law saying "it is now legal to do X" In this hypothetical case, do you support the federal governments view, or the states? Do you think X should remain illegal and the states shouldn't be allowed to over turn it on their own?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:It's coherent now? If it was a bad federal law I would oppose the federal executive emphasizing enforcement of it and use that as a factor in voting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
So you admit you think laws are bad! Why are you posting when you could be out doing illegal things! This is a cool conversation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Even in a totally bloodless reading of the law, to the extent that's even possible, it depends what thing "X" is. I guess it also depends on whether you mean "should" in a moral normative sense or from a jurisprudential standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:If it was a bad federal law I would oppose the federal executive emphasizing enforcement of it and use that as a factor in voting. So you are making the: "if I agree with it, it's ok. If I disagree with it, it's not ok" argument? Basically you are using "MY FEELS" as to weather or not federal law should trump state law. Correct? (It's ok to say yes by the way. Nothing wrong with saying "MY FEELS > Having a coherent system of executive policy". That is a valid argument)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:So you are making the: "if I agree with it, it's ok. If I disagree with it, it's not ok" argument? Basically you are using "MY FEELS" as to weather or not federal law should trump state law. I don't make policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Just wanted confirmation that you are supporting the "its good when I want it, bad when I don't want it" argument. Which do you feel is a greater problem in the USA right now: the War on Drugs or the states rights movement?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:So you are making the: "if I agree with it, it's ok. If I disagree with it, it's not ok" argument? Basically you are using "MY FEELS" as to weather or not federal law should trump state law. Do you think today and/or historically this is a question with people who come down on one side or the other in all circumstances? Partisans on one side or the other of federalism in all contexts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
christ why are you guys ever bothering with this donger? this is exactly the reason d&d threads end up being loving godawful
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Here's a D&D tip: Before responding to someone click on their post history, read some of their previous posts, then determine if you should respond to them or not.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Just wanted confirmation that you are supporting the "its good when I want it, bad when I don't want it" argument. quote:So just to clarify. If the federal government says: quote:"it is illegal to deny an abortion" - Federal law trumps state law quote:"it is illegal to teach creationism in public school" - Federal law trumps state law quote:"it is illegal to harbor fugitive slaves" - State law trumps federal law State law never trumps federal law. There are matters where the federal government gets to make laws, and there are matters where the states get to make laws (and overlap). Where the federal governmet has control, the federal government is responsible for enforcing its own laws, and doesn't get to compel assistance from the states. edit: Arakan posted:Here's a D&D tip: Before responding to someone click on their post history, read some of their previous posts, then determine if you should respond to them or not. twodot fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Yeah, in a situation where the state law is good and the federal law is bad, the appropriate course of action is to lobby against enforcement of the federal law, and ideally for repeal of the federal law. Federal law obviously trumps state law but only if the federal law is enforced.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Sorta like not letting African Americans into white schools then and forcing federal troops to show up. So "extreme states rights" is your position? You are an anti-federalist?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, in a situation where the state law is good and the federal law is bad, the appropriate course of action is to lobby against enforcement of the federal law, and ideally for repeal of the federal law. Federal law obviously trumps state law but only if the federal law is enforced. What if state law is "bad" and the federal law is "good"? How is the federal government going to enforce "you are allowed to have an abortion" if Texas makes it illegal? "Abortions are legal in the state of Texas" only exists as a law, if the federal government chooses to enforce it (and is even capable of enforcing it in the first place) right? The second the federal government stops enforcing the law, it no longer applies? What if they were never capable of truly enforcing it in the first place? Then the law never even existed? What is the appropriate course of action in this abortion scenario? Set up federal abortion clinics on federal land inside Texas and lobby the state government to repeal the law? If they never repeal it, then "too bad, so sad"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
You hardly have to make up CRAZY HYPOTHETICALS when we like know exactly what happens then because that's the current law? I'm not sure I really even understand what your objection is. Laws don't exist as some sort of objectively real principles. A law that isn't enforced is a de facto nullity until such time as someone with the power to do so chooses to enforce it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:What if state law is "bad" and the federal law is "good"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:You hardly have to make up CRAZY HYPOTHETICALS when we like know exactly what happens then because that's the current law? I'm just trying to get everyone's take on question: quote:Suppose there is a law on the books, by the federal government, that says "it is illegal to do X" So far the only answers have been: * "it depends on if my feelings tell me that X is a good thing or a bad thing" * "it depends on if the ban on X is currently being enforced by the federal government. If yes, then it should remain illegal. If no, then the state can do what it wants" Both are very valid answers. The first answer has no consistency to it though, as your support of state or federal will flip flop constantly. I think a civilization designed that way would be pretty chaotic. At least the second position has some consistency to it: "if the federal government is actively enforcing the law, it should continue to exist. If the federal government is not actively enforcing the law, then it should not exist".
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, though. Normally I hate that kind of dismissive trivialization but it's applicable here. Why should we care whether the law as a whole is consistent or not, when we can make a change now that will directly improve people's lives? If I'm a cancer patient and need marijuana to survive chemotherapy, I cant' give a poo poo (I mean, I literally couldn't give a poo poo) whether or not it would be consistent for the federal government to enforce the ban on marijuana against me; I need the marijuana to bear up through chemotherapy and stay alive. Worrying about consistency in that situation is arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of the proverbial pin. End of the day, the law is a conglomeration of many rules by many people. It's never going to be wholly consistent, and neither is the process of reforming it. Ultimately, whether or not one supports a given law is a moral, and therefore an individual, decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:I'm just trying to get everyone's take on question: The real question is why you care so much about what these random people think. But I guess you cannot stand people having differing opinions, even if they are just based on what they want and not logic?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:* "it depends on if the ban on X is currently being enforced by the federal government. If yes, then it should remain illegal. If no, then the state can do what it wants" Hieronymous Alloy posted:I need the marijuana to bear up through chemotherapy and stay alive. Worrying about consistency in that situation is arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of the proverbial pin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, though. Normally I hate that kind of dismissive trivialization but it's applicable here. Why should we care whether the law as a whole is consistent or not, when we can make a change now that will directly improve people's lives? This explanation is all I wanted. It's a valid argument. I don't necessarily disagree with it either. How would you write it into a constitution though? Like if you were setting up a new government on Mars and you were programing your con-law-bot? "Federal law always trumps state law, except when the federal law is immoral. In that case, the state law trumps the federal law". I mean, that could work. It's just that "immoral" is very subjective. You could have two people doing the opposite thing and both of them legitimately thinking they are making the moral choice. Do we do "majority rules" if that happens? Moral =51%, Immoral = 49%
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:What if state law is "bad" and the federal law is "good"? But if this was going to happen, it would've happened in 1972 when Roe was first handed down. It didn't, probably because the memories of how useless it was last time were fresh in their minds, and by now states don't generally dig in against the judicial branch even when they pass laws they know in advance will be nullified. You seem to think you're asking some difficult hypos here but this is like Federalism 101 stuff to anyone who has taken a basic Constitutional Law class, and that's just looking at what the case law currently says about incorporation, supremacy, and federal-state conflicts without even taking any prescriptive stances on what it should be. WA and CO are not exactly shaking the foundations of our republic, any more than the medical states are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:I'm just trying to get everyone's take on question: Hey, since we're getting takes on questions how about answering: CheesyDog posted:Which do you feel is a greater problem in the USA right now: the War on Drugs or the states rights movement?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:I mean, that could work. It's just that "immoral" is very subjective. Perhaps men with wise majicks and flowing robes could be chosen and set aside specially to "judge" such matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:This explanation is all I wanted. It's a valid argument. I don't necessarily disagree with it either. The answer within our current system is the presidential pardon power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Jesus christ guys I think even if a shitposter wrote in his post "I am trolling to get maximum reaction from this thread" you would still fall for the bait. Also poo poo Hieronymous when did you become a mod?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Hey, since we're getting takes on questions how about answering: I don't think either one is a problem. As I said earlier, I am in full agreement with Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren on these issues. The 2016 election is coming up fast, so hopefully you have a prospective candidate picked out yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:As I said earlier, I am in full agreement with Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren on these issues. Hmm, that seems a bit inconsistent with: GuyDudeBroMan posted:I'm a little pissed with Obama on this subject, what with his recent "marijuana is not as bad as alcohol" remarks. That really rubbed me the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:
You don't think the War on Drugs is a problem? 3 second google "is the war on drugs a problem" http://www.drugpolicy.org/fighting-drug-war-injustice http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/154061 http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/paradox/htele.html I think someone might argue that point with you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan, you need to smoke some weed and stop being awful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Twodot and guydudebroman two great tastes that taste great together. I'm just glad I'm not the only one that thinks this is a loving asinine discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
My employer is going to pay for me to live in Colorado for a year. What are some good secondary business ideas in Denver? I'm thinking maybe an edibles food truck? I make phenomenal cannibutter and my girlfriend works at a bakery. Edibles food trucks are one of those things that I've always wished existed; alas I currently live in the Godless east coast where it is not legal to do such things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
No way that would be legal currently. Marijuana sales are strictly regulated and no one can even apply to be a retail marijuana seller unless they are already a MMJ dispensary owner. Add on top of that that you'd be basically selling on the street where currently the marijuana must be behind locked doors and customers must have their IDs checked before being allowed inside. Some new business ideas would be private clubs; I've already seen ads for cannabis-friendly strip clubs. I'd think there might be a way to set up a cigar lounge type deal where people pay for a club membership and can smoke weed inside. It is currently prohibited for cannabis to be consumed on any business property, so I'm not sure how you'd organize it to get by. There's nothing prohibiting a business like that from having a deal with a retail store across the street to give discounts to their members, either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:11 |
|
|
District Selectman posted:My employer is going to pay for me to live in Colorado for a year. What are some good secondary business ideas in Denver? I'm thinking maybe an edibles food truck? I make phenomenal cannibutter and my girlfriend works at a bakery. Edibles food trucks are one of those things that I've always wished existed; alas I currently live in the Godless east coast where it is not legal to do such things. You should start an emergency service that people can call when they get too high and would otherwise call a real emergency service. You could have a car with a siren and bring people ice water and cartoons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:12
|
|
